Phase II RFC
Report on Performance Testing
             Aprils, 1999
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
         Office of Mobile Sources
         Fuels and Energy Division

-------
                                 CONTENTS






 I.     Executive Summary






 II.     Background




       A.    RFG Program




       B.    Implementation Workgroup






 III.     Vehicle Performance Test Program




       A.    Design



       B.    Fuel




       C.    Fleets



       D.    Vehicle Performance






 IV.     Fuel Economy



      A.    Southwest Research Institute Study



      B.    Fleet Average Fuel Economy






 V.     Nonroad Test Program



      A.    Utility,  Lawn, and Garden Equipment



      B.    Marine Engines






VI.    Motorcycle Test Program






VII.   Conclusion

-------
                                   TABLES
 1.    Test Fuel Properties
 2.    Boston Police Department Fleet
 3.    Elk Grove Village Fleet
 4.    Houston Lighting & Power Fleet
 5.    Arlington County Nonroad Engines
 6.    Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Tested in Laboratory
 7.    Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Tested On-road
                                APPENDICES
A.    Phase II RFG Implementation Workgroup
B.    Testing Team
C.    Technical Steering Committee
D.    Test Plan:  Evaluation of On-Highway Motor Vehicles Operated on Federal
      Phase II Reformulated Gasoline
E.    Comparison of Fuel Parameters in California Cleaning Burning Gasoline and
      Federal Phase II RFG
F.    Statement of Work
G.    Certificates of Analysis
H.    NVFEL Fuel Analyses
I.     Daily Minimum and Maximum Temperatures in Test Cities
J.    Ford Analysis
K.    General Motors Analyses
L.    Letter from Elk Grove Village Fleet Manager
M.    Southwest Research Institute Fuel Economy Study
N.    Temperatures at Milwaukee Mitchell Airport: October - December 1998
                              Acknowledgment

      This report was peer reviewed by the Phase II RFG Implementation Workgroup's
technical steering committee. Members of the technical steering committee are listed in
Appendix C.

      This report was also reviewed by John Hornback, director of the Kentucky
Department for Environmental Protection's Division for Air Quality and co-chair of the
workgroup, and by Martin Gottschalk, manager of the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources's Mobile Sources and Area Sources Program.

-------
 I.     Executive Summary

       The federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) program was introduced in January
 1995. RFG is a specially blended gasoline that burns cleaner, reducing vehicle
 emissions of air pollutants that cause smog.  Congress requires the RFG program in
 those cities with the worst smog problems. Other areas may choose to participate in
 the program. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia currently use RFG. About
 30 percent of the U.S. gasoline supply is reformulated.

       The second phase of the RFG program will begin in January 2000. Phase II
 RFG will achieve even greater vehicle emission reductions than Phase I, although the
 gasoline blend will be similar in many ways. To ensure that any vehicle performance
 problems with  Phase II RFG would be identified before the fuel is introduced to the
 public, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a fleet testing
 program in 1998.

       EPA tested 374 in use vehicles in three cities over a period of three to five
 months.  Conditions during testing included subfreezing temperatures in the north and
 record heat in the south. The combined test fleets drove over one million miles with
 Phase II RFG. No performance problems with Phase II RFG  were reported.

       Fleets that participated in the testing program include the Boston Police
 Department, Elk Grove Village in suburban Chicago, and the  Houston Lighting & Power
 Company. Vehicles in these fleets were generally well maintained.

      Well maintained vehicles should experience no unusual performance problems
with Phase II RFG. Of course, as vehicles  age, parts wear out, so maintenance is the
key to good performance with any fuel.

      In a separate study by Southwest Research Institute, fuel economy with Phase II
 RFG was compared to Phase I RFG with 12 vehicles of various makes, ages, and
 mileage under normal driving conditions. The results indicate no statistically significant
difference between the fuels. The results are consistent with  other fuel economy
studies which show that fuels of equivalent energy content will produce equivalent fuel
economy.

      Testing was also conducted with  small engines, including 177 pieces of utility,
lawn,  and garden equipment, and with marine and motorcycle engines.  No
performance problems were reported.

      In summary, no difference in vehicle performance or fuel economy is expected
when Phase II  RFG replaces Phase I RFG.  In addition, no difference in performance is
expected with small engines, marine engines, or motorcycles.

-------
II.    Background

      A.    RFG Program

      Section 211 (k) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs EPA to issue regulations
establishing a reformulated gasoline program that will significantly reduce vehicle
emissions that contribute to smog. On February 16, 1994, EPA published a final rule
establishing various content and emission reduction standards for RFG, including
provisions for enforcement of RFG standards (59 FR 7716). The purpose of the RFG
program is to improve air quality by requiring that gasoline sold in certain areas of the
U.S. be reformulated to reduce emissions of toxics and smog-forming compounds from
motor vehicles.

      Section 211(k) mandates that RFG be sold in the nine specific metropolitan
areas with the most severe summertime ozone levels as measured during the period
1987 through 1989; RFG must also be sold in any ozone nonattainment area
subsequently reclassified as a severe area. Other ozone nonattainment areas may
choose to participate or "opt in" to the program.  Ground level or tropospheric ozone is
the primary ingredient of smog. Ground level ozone results from a reaction between
such gases as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) that
are emitted from vehicles and other sources.

      The Act mandates certain requirements for the RFG program. Section 211(k)(1)
directs EPA to issue regulations that:

      require the greatest reduction  in emissions of ozone forming volatile organic
      compounds (during the high ozone season) and emissions of toxic air pollutants
      (during the entire year) achievable through the reformulation of conventional
      gasoline, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission
      reductions, any nonair quality  and other air-quality related health and
      environmental impacts and energy requirements.

Section 211(k) specifies the minimum requirement for reduction of VOCs and toxics for
1995 through 1999, or Phase I of the RFG program; the section specifies that EPA
must require the more stringent of a specified fuel formula or an emission reduction
performance standard, measured on a mass basis,  equal to 15 percent of baseline
emissions.  Baseline emissions are the emissions of 1990 model year technology
vehicles operated on a specified baseline gasoline.  Section 211(k) compositional
specifications for RFG include a 2.0 weight percent oxygen minimum standard and a
1.0 volume percent benzene maximum standard. Section 211(k) also specifies that
emissions of NOx may not increase in RFG over baseline emissions.

      For the year 2000 and beyond, or Phase  II of the RFG program, the Act specifies

-------
 that the VOC and toxic performance standards must be no less than either a specified
 fuel formula or a 25 percent reduction from baseline emissions, whichever is more
 stringent. EPA can adjust these standards upward or downward taking into account
 such factors as technological feasibility and cost, but in no case can the standards be
 less than 20 percent.

       Shortly after passage of the CAA Amendments in 1990, EPA entered into a
 regulatory negotiation with interested parties to develop specific proposals for
 implementing the RFG program. In August 1991, the negotiating committee reached
 consensus on a program outline that would form the basis for a notice of proposed
 rulemaking, addressing emission content standards for Phase I (1995-1999), emission
 models, certification, enforcement, and other important program elements.

       The  regulatory negotiation conducted by EPA did not address the Phase II VOC
 and toxic standards for RFG, nor did it address a reduction in NOx emissions beyond
 the statutory cap imposed under section 211(k)(2)(A). The final rule promulgated by
 EPA closely followed the consensus outline agreed to by various parties in the
 negotiated rulemaking  process.  The final rule also adopted a NOx emission reduction
 performance standard for Phase II RFG, relying  on authority under section 211(c)(1)(A).
         Reformulated Gasoline Average Emission Reduction Requirements*

                                          Phase I**    Phase II**
      Volatile Organic Compounds           17%         27%
      Nitrogen Oxides                      2%          7%
      Toxics                              17%         22%

*Reductions are from 1990 nationwide baseline.
"Complex model averaged standards for VOC-control Region 2 (i.e., northern areas).
      The Phase I RFG program is designed to reduce the air pollution that causes
smog by 36,000 tons per year in the areas that use RFG, compared to conventional
gasoline -- the equivalent of eliminating the emissions from over eight million vehicles.
When Phase II RFG replaces Phase I, the program is designed to reduce smog
pollutants by an additional 45,000 tons per year in RFG areas, for a combined
equivalent of eliminating the emissions from over 16 million vehicles.

      Analysis of fuel data submitted to EPA by industry for compliance purposes
indicates that in each year since the RFG program's introduction in 1995, VOC and

-------
toxic reductions from the RFG program have exceeded program requirements.
Preliminary data analysis for 1998 indicates that, on average, all Phase I emission
reduction standards are being met and exceeded.  In 1998, most RFG already
exceeded the Phase II RFG average perfoimance standard for toxics, and some RFG
in the Northeast exceeded Phase II  RFG emission reduction standards for NOx in the
ozone control season (i.e., the summer months). At this time, refiners are still making
incremental investments to produce adequate volumes of compliant Phase II RFG.

      Air quality monitoring data for 1995, the first year of the RFG program, shows a
43 percent reduction in benzene in the ambient air in RFG areas, according to EPA's
National Air Quality and Emission Trends Report, 1995. A greater percentage of
monitoring sites in RFG areas showed statistically significant decreases in average
benzene than did sites in non-RFG areas.  The RFG program limits benzene. Still,  to
overcome the difficulties inherent in  linking changes in the ambient air to particular
pollution reduction programs like RFG, an independent analysis of the data was
conducted by Sonoma Technology,  Inc. The analysis of the 1995 ambient air
monitoring data indicates that there  is a strong case that the ambient reductions in
benzene resulted from RFG.

      B.     Implementation Workgroup

      In April 1997, EPA formed a stakeholder workgroup under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act to focus on Phase II  RFG implementation issues. The Phase II RFG
Implementation Workgroup was established by the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee's
Mobile Source Technical Review Subcommittee. The workgroup includes
representatives of the automobile and oil industries, environmental and public health
groups, and state agencies and associations. The goal of the workgroup is to provide
factual information to the public by working together to identify, gather, and  analyze
data on Phase II RFG. Members of the workgroup are listed in Appendix A. The
workgroup formed teams to focus on testing and education activities.
III.    Vehicle Performance Test Program

      To ensure that any vehicle performance problems with Phase II RFG would be
identified before the fuel is introduced to the public, the testing team recommended a
fleet testing program with Phase II RFG, compared to Phase I  RFG. The fleet testing
recommendation was adopted by the workgroup, and the Mobile Source Technical
Review Subcommittee. Members of the testing team are listed in Appendix B.

      The testing team also recommended formation of a technical steering committee
to guide development of the fleet testing program.  Members of the technical steering
committee are listed  in Appendix C.

-------
       A.    Design

       The purpose of the test program was to identify any performance problems that
 might be associated with Phase II RFC before the fuel is introduced to the public in;
 January 2000 by conducting performance testing in several cities representative of RFG
 areas. Boston, Chicago, and Houston were selected by the workgroup as test program
 sites.

       The technical steering committee worked with EPA to develop a test plan,
 "Evaluation of On-Highway Motor Vehicles Operated on Federal Phase II  Reformulated
 Gasoline," included as Appendix D. The plan is similar to the test program conducted
 by the California Air Resources Board for the introduction of its cleaner burning gasoline
 program in June 1996, but smaller in scale.

       From February to August 1995, the California Air Resources Board conducted a
 performance and compatibility test program with its cleaner burning gasoline (CaRFG).
 With a fleet of 1466 vehicles, 829 test vehicles were driven over five million miles with
 CaRFG. The workgroup believes that the California data is applicable to Phase II RFG
 since the testing was conducted on a wide mix of vehicle types and ages with a fuel
 more severely reformulated  and designed to burn cleaner than is expected for Phase II
 RFG.  A comparison of the properties of Phase II RFG and CaRFG is included in
 Appendix E.

       California's test results indicate that CaRFG performed as well as conventional
 fuel  in terms of driveability, starting, idling, acceleration, power, and safety. There was
 no significant difference  between the frequency of problems in the test and control
 fleets.  Newer vehicles did not experience problems.  Historical maintenance and repair
 data indicate an increasing rate ofiailures in fuel system components associated with
 aging irrespective of the  fuel used.

       The workgroup determined that the California testing results are relevant for
 Phase II RFG. However, several data gaps were identified, particularly vehicle
 performance with ethanol-oxygenated fuels and vehicle performance in cold
 temperatures and the shoulder season (i.e., the period of time in late spring and early
 autumn when unseasonably cold temperatures may occur). Therefore,  EPA's test
 program was designed to fill gaps in existing data.

       Funding for the test fuel for Boston and Chicago was provided by the American
 Petroleum Institute, Oxygenated Fuels Association, and American Methanol Institute.
 Management of fuel distribution for the Boston and Chicago fleets was handled by the
 Lake Michigan Air Directors  Consortium. EPA provided test fuel for Houston.  EPA
 entered into a contract with each participating fleet that covered identification of the test
fleet, vehicle inspection,  incident reporting, and fuel provisions.  An example of a

                                       8

-------
 statement of work for these contracts is included in Appendix F.

       To carry out the test plan, EPA technicians from the National Vehicle and Fuel
 Emissions Laboratory inspected the fuel systems of each test and control vehicle
 included in the test program. Fuel system inspections were conducted three times over
 five months in Boston  and Chicago, and twice over three months in Houston.  For each
 test and control vehicle inspected, relevant information such as mileage and vehicle
 description was noted on fuel system inspection forms.  Examples of these forms are
 included with the test plan in Appendix  D.

       The test plan also includes driveability incident logs that were designed to
 capture information on vehicle performance measures such as starting, running, and
 idling.  EPA provided copies of the driveability incident log  to participating fleets. The
 driveability incident log is included in  Appendix D.
      B.
Fuel
      The technical steering committee developed four formulations of test fuel for the
fleet testing program that meet the standards for Phase II RFG:  winter fuel oxygenated
with MTBE, winter fuel oxygenated with ethanol, summer fuel oxygenated with MTBE,
and summer fuel oxygenated with a  mixture of MTBE and TAME. The test fuel
formulations are equivalent to the average or 50th percentile fuel expected for Phase II
RFG.  The test fuel property specifications developed by the technical steering
committee are shown in the test plan in Appendix D. The technical steering committee
also developed allowable ranges of parameters and maximum blending fractions for
each test fuel to assure that the test fuels would be representative of actual refinery
blends.  The fractions and ranges are included in the test plan in Appendix D. The
properties of the test fuels used in the fleet testing program are shown in Table 1.
                          Table 1 - Test Fuel Properties

Oxygenate, vol%

RVP, psi
Sulfur, ppm
Aromatics, vol%
Olefins, vol%
Benzene, vol%
T10.F
T50, F
T90, F
Summer MTBE
11.2

6.8
155
24.5
12
1.0
139.7
205.7
312.5
Summer MTBE +
TAME
10.81 MTBE
3.288 TAME
6.75
169
23.5
13
1.0
138.5
192.7
308.2
Winter MTBE
11.7

12.8
298
23.85
10.5
0.98
106.5
190.3
331.3
Winter Ethanol
9.74

13.1
309
25.2
11
0.999
110.4
182.7
335.3

-------
       Test fuel was manufactured by Phillips Chemical Company.  Certificates of
 analysis for the four fuel formulations used in the testing program are included in
 Appendix G.  Fuel property analyses were also performed for verification by EPA's
 National Vehicle and  Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) in Ann Arbor. NVFEL
 analyses confirmed that the fuels fell within acceptable ranges for Phase II RFC, or
 within test method precision range, which specifies an acceptable range of variability.
 NVFEL analyses are  included in Appendix H.

       During the testing program, Boston received five test fuel deliveries totaling
 39,914 gallons. Of the total, 23,947 gallons were the winter fuel oxygenated with
 MTBE, 8,073 gallons were the summer fuel oxygenated with MTBE, and 7,894 gallons
 were the summer fuel oxygenated with MTBE and TAME.

      Elk Grove Village in suburban Chicago received three fuel deliveries totaling
 24,432 gallons. Of the total, 16,272 gallons were the winter fuel oxygenated with
 ethanol, and 8,160 gallons were the summer fuel oxygenated with MTBE.

      Houston received three test fuel deliveries totaling 23,448 gallons. All test fuel
 used in Houston was  the summer fuel oxygenated with MTBE.

      C.    Fleets

      Three vehicle fleets in three cities participated in the program. Boston,  Chicago,
 and Houston were selected by the testing  team and approved by the workgroup as
 representative of geographic areas participating in the RFG program. The National
Association of Fleet Administrators provided assistance in locating participating fleets.

      Testing in Boston and suburban Chicago's Elk Grove Village  was conducted
from March through July. In Houston, the  test period was June through August. Daily
 minimum and maximum temperatures for the test period for Boston, Chicago, and
 Houston are listed in Appendix I.
                                                    \
      In Boston, the Police Department agreed to participate in the  fleet testing
 program. The fleet was composed of two  police precincts; one precinct provided a test
fleet and another precinct provided a control fleet. Due to the preexisting sizes of the
fleet at each precinct,  it was not possible to find a closer match between the number of
vehicles in the test and control fleets.
                                      10

-------
                   Table 2 - Boston Police Department Test Fleet
                                                Test Fuel
Control Fuel
Year
99
98
97
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
89
88

Total
1
4
35
9
20
2
10
1
9
2
2
2
97
Cars
0
3
35
9
17
2
8
1
9
0
2
1
87
Trucks
1
1
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
2
0
1
10














Cars
0 .
0
23
8
8
0
5
1
6
0
1
1
53
Trucks
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
6
Cars
0
3
12
1
9
2
3
0
3
0
1
0
34
Trucks
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
4
      In suburban Chicago, Elk Grove Village agreed to participate in the program.
The fleet is composed of vehicles used in the full range of municipal activities, including
fire and  police protection, and parks and sewer maintenance.

      Two motorcycles belonging to Elk Grove Village also used Phase II RFG during
the test  program. The motorcycles are not included in the table or in the results
because of their small number and  because there were no control motorcycles. No
performance problems were reported with the two motorcycles using Phase II RFG.
For further information  on motorcycle performance with Phase II RFG, see section VI
fora description of the  motorcycle testing program conducted by Harley-Davidson.
                                      11

-------
                       Table 3 - Elk Grove Village Test Fleet
                                                 Test Fuel
Control Fuel
Year
97
96
95
94
93
92
91
90
89
88
87
86
83
82
81
79
73

Total
4
14
11
13
14
14
8
3
1
8
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
98
Cars
0
13
10
11
13
13
7
3
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
Trucks
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
0
5
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
23



















Cars
0
6
5
6
6
7
3
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
Trucks
2
1
0
1
0
0
1
0 .
0
3
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
12
Cars
0
7
5
5
7
6
4
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
Trucks
2
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
11
      In Houston, the Lighting & Power Company agreed to participate in the test
program. Unlike the Boston and Chicago fleets, most of the vehicles in the Houston
fleet are trucks.
                                       12

-------
                   Table 4 - Houston Lighting & Power Test Fleet
                                                 Test Fuel
Control Fuel
Year
97
96
95
94
93
92
91

Total
53
12
59
15
10
0
30
179
Cars
15
5
1
0
1
0
23
45
Trucks
38
7
58
15
9
0
7
134









Cars
11
3
1
0
0
0
12
27
Trucks
21
6
30
4
4
0
2
67
Cars
4
2
0
0
1
0
11
18
Trucks
17
1
28
11
5
0
5
67
      The fleets involved in the testing program were composed primarily of General
Motors and Ford cars and trucks, with model years ranging from 1973 to 1999. Trucks
include sport utility vehicles, vans, pickups, and step vans. The practicalities of finding
fleets of an appropriate size, in the geographic locations desired, at the time needed,
necessarily limited potential options in terms of representing all automobile
manufacturers.  The vehicle technologies tested are generally representative of vehicle
technologies employed over the same time period.

      D.    Vehicle Performance

      For the purposes of this fleet testing program, the term "incident" means that a
fuel system component was adjusted, repaired, or replaced other than through regular
scheduled maintenance. There were six incidents during the course of the testing
program involving vehicles using Phase II RFC test fuel.

      Boston

      During the test program, one fuel pump from a 1988 truck in the Boston Police
fleet using Phase II RFG was sent to the vehicle manufacturer for analysis.  The pump
symptom was a leak at the pump outlet port. The manufacturer determined that the
pump's performance was still within specifications. The manufacturer's examination
indicated that the cause of the leak was mechanical and not fuel related.  It was most
likely to have resulted from damage to the fitting that screws into the pump outlet port.
The manufacturer's analysis is included in Appendix J.  The incident occurred during
the use of summer test fuel oxygenated with MTBE and TAME.
                                      13

-------
       Elk Grove Village

       Four incidents were reported on vehicles using Phase II RFC test fuel during the
 course of testing in suburban Chicago's Elk Grove Village.  All four incidents occurred
 with the winter test fuel oxygenated with ethanol.

       In three cases, electric fuel pumps failed on police vehicles that ranged in age
 from 1992 to 1996 with between 56,000 and 85,000 miles.   Fuel pumps from the 1995
 and 1996 vehicles were sent to the vehicle manufacturer for analysis.  The
 manufacturer determined that the two pumps failed because of severe corrosion of the
 positive brush shunt wire. According to the manufacturer, the corrosion is typical of
 previously observed field results during long-term exposure to gasoline containing
 reactive sulfur compounds that did not meet ASTM specifications. The manufacturer
 concluded that a high level of corrosion probably was present in both pumps at the start
 of the testing program, and the failures were unrelated to the use of Phase II RFG.  The
 analysis submitted by the manufacturer is included as Appendix K. The third electric
 fuel pump, from the 1992 vehicle, was inadvertently disposed of by a fleet mechanic
 before it could be shipped to the manufacturer for analysis.  While it seems likely that
 the third fuel pump suffered from the same corrosion as the other two, there  is
 insufficient information to determine the cause of the failure.

       In response to the findings in the manufacturer's analysis, samples of the winter
 test and control fuels were analyzed to assess relative corrosivity.  Some sulfur
 compounds that remain in gasoline after refining can have a corroding  action on various
 metals. Copper strip corrosion tests were performed and the results showed both fuels
to be non-corrosive. The results of the corrosivity tests support the manufacturer's view
that the electric pump failures were unrelated to the use of Phase II RFG.

      The fourth fuel pump from the Elk Grove Village fleet was removed from a 1981
 step van with 66,000 miles.  The manufacturer's analysis indicates that the mechanical
 pump is an after market part of unknown manufacture and showed no obvious signs of
 failure except an oil leak and extruded seal. The oil leak was not caused by  fuel
 composition, but the extruded seal could be the result of excessive swell caused  by
 oxygenates or a high aromatic content or a combination, or  by an assembly problem.
The manufacturer speculated that if the seal extruded because of excessive  swell, that
could have happened in the short duration of the test program; however, the
 manufacturer concluded it is more likely that the pump failure was  unrelated  to Phase II
 RFG use.

      According to the Elk Grove Village fleet manager, the number of fuel pump
failures during the test program is normal for the fleet's size; in his experience, fuel
pump replacement is expected on vehicles that have accumulated more than 60,000
miles.  The fleet manager's comments are included in Appendix  L.

                                      14

-------
       Houston

       One fuel pump using test fuel in Houston failed during the course of the test
program.  That pump and three pumps from fleet vehicles not participating in the test
program were sent to the manufacturer for analysis. All four pumps were from 1993
pickups with mileage ranging from 72,771 to 86,589.  Heavy commutator wear coupled
with normal brush wear led the manufacturer to believe that all four pumps failed due to
operation  on peroxidized fuel, also known as sour fuel. Since the failure occurred  with
both the test and control fuels, the manufacturer theorized that the failures are more
likely related to the fuel dispensing system or to vehicle usage and operating factors
rather than the composition of either fuel.  The manufacturer's analysis is included in
Appendix  K.

      The three pickups using Phase I RFC control fuel that had pump failures,
described  above, were not assigned to the control fleet. However, fleet personnel
alerted EPA to the incidents.  Although not assigned to the control fleet, the three
pickups were using the same fuel as the control fleet. The incidents are reported here
due to their close occurrence in time and similarity to the single test fleet fuel pump
failure.

      Fuel samples from both the test and control fuel dispensers in Houston were
analyzed to determine their levels of peroxide,  gum, and acidity,  properties related to
storage and handling degradation.  Both fuel analyses indicated  the fuel properties
were within acceptable ranges. These analyses suggest that individual vehicle usage
and operating factors are more likely related to the incidents than the fuel dispensing
system, since peroxidation occurred in individual fuel tanks, not in the fleet's fuel
dispensing system.  The summer testing in Houston included an extended period of
extremely  hot weather, a condition conducive to oxidation of gasoline in individual
vehicle fuel tanks.

      Summary

      There were six incidents during the course of the testing program in vehicles
using test  fuel. Five of the six incidents were deemed unrelated  to the use of Phase II
RFC by the relevant automobile manufacturer. In the sixth incident, the part in question
was lost and the cause of its failure could not be determined.

       No  problems with starting, running, idling, acceleration, or power were reported
by any fleet. One fleet manager described his  fleet's use of Phase II RFG as
transparent; fleet users and the mechanical staff saw no change or effect (see
Appendix  L).
                                       15

-------
IV.   Fuel Economy

      Another aspect of the testing program recommended by the workgroup involves
measuring fuel economy with Phase II RFG compared to Phase I  RFC. Two data sets
are presented here.

      A.    Southwest Research Institute Study

      EPA hired Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) to conduct a fuel economy
study comparing Phase II RFG with Phase I RFG. Fuel economy  was measured for 12
vehicles of various makes, ages, mileage, and fuel delivery systems.  The vehicles
were driven over fixed 50 mile urban and suburban routes. Fuel usage was determined
by using a flow meter to precisely measure the total volume of fuel consumed during
the 50 mile route. The Phase II RFG summer fuel oxygenated with MTBE was used.
The results of this study do not indicate any statistically significant fuel economy
difference between the fuels.

      The fleet average fuel economy was 21.71 miles per gallon with Phase I RFG
and 21.36 miles per gallon with Phase II RFG.  The difference in fleet fuel economies
was 0.343.  Statistical tests indicate that the small difference in fleet fuel economies
cannot be attributed to the fuel, and that the difference would have to be almost twice
as large to be significant. The difference in fleet fuel economies may be due to
variability in the test method.  Sources of such test-to-test variability that could not be
entirely controlled in the study include differences in driver inputs,  traffic patterns, and
weather effects.

      The outcome of the SWRI study is consistent with other fuel economy studies,
and with EPA's analysis of test fleet fuel economy (discussed below). Fuel economy is
generally proportional to the energy content of the fuel.  During the past few years,
studies of the fuel economy effects  of reformulated gasolines with  oxygenates,
including  laboratory and on-road studies, have shown that the addition of two percent
oxygen, by weight, to gasoline results in a one to three percent fuel economy loss.  In
this study, both gasolines have essentially the same oxygen content and the same
energy content. Since the energy content difference between Phase I RFG and Phase
II RFG is  expected to be minimal, the absence of an impact on the fuel economy
measured in this study was expected.

      The SWRI study was designed to minimize the effects of the fuel economy
variables that are normally present  in driving. The key variables include differences in
personal driving habits, weather (temperature, wind effects, and precipitation), traffic
patterns (rush hour versus weekend, highway versus city driving),  number of
passengers,  vehicle condition, and  changes in tire pressure. The relative effect of many
of these variables can be expected  to exceed any reduction due to the use of RFG.

                                      16

-------
The SWRI report is included as Appendix M. The report was reviewed by the technical
steering committee and presented to the workgroup.

      B.    Fleet Average Fuel Economy

      Data on fleet average fuel economy for this analysis is limited.  The Boston fleet
provided no data on fuel economy because the records of fuel usage were not
sufficient. Data from the Houston fleet contained gaps and inconsistencies that
prevented useful analysis.  The Elk Grove Village fleet maintained sufficient fueling
records to determine fuel economy for a portion of the fleet, and is included here.

      Data obtained from the Elk Grove Village fleet for the test period in 1997 and
1998 indicate that there is no meaningful difference in fuel economy between Phase I
RFC and Phase II RFC.  For the Elk Grove Village fleet, vehicles using Phase I RFC as
control fuel were different than those  using Phase II RFG as test fuel,  unlike the study
performed by SWRI. Also, the routes and driving styles of each individual vehicle
differed within each fuel group.  Nevertheless, the makes and types of vehicles were
essentially the same between each fuel group. The test fleet included seven Caprices
and one E250.  The control fleet included  12 Caprices, one Mustang, and one Tempo.

      For the test period, March through July in 1998, the composite averages in miles
per gallon (i.e., total fleet miles driven divided by total fleet gallons used) for the test
and control fleets were 9.59 and 9.47 respectively,  representing a 1.2  percent
difference between the two fuels.  The value of 1.2 percent does not represent a
meaningful difference in miles per gallon between the two fuels, given the other
measures of variability between the two data sets, noted above.

      By comparison, during March through July in 1997, when both fleets were using
Phase I RFG, the composite averages in miles per gallon for the test and control fleets
were 9.48 and 9.47 respectively, representing a 0.1 percent difference between the two
fuels.  The 95 percent confidence interval for the 1997 control fleet was 9.32 to 11.29
miles per gallon. The mean miles per gallon for the individual vehicles in the test  fuel
fleet (as opposed to a composite average) was 9.33 miles per gallon, which lies within
the confidence interval for the control fleet.
V.    Nonroad Test Program

      In addition to vehicle testing, the workgroup recommended a testing program to
evaluate the performance of Phase II RFG with nonroad engines. The test fuel used for
nonroad engine testing was the same as the test fuel used with vehicle fleets. The
nonroad test program included 177 pieces of gasoline-powered equipment that
encompassed 11 types of utility, lawn, and garden equipment, and included both two-

                                      17

-------
 cycle and four-cycle engine designs. In addition, two-cycle and four-cycle marine
 engines were tested by Mercury Marine at six sites.

       A.    Utility, Lawn, and Garden Equipment

       The Arlington County, Virginia Department of Parks and Natural Resources
 provided the equipment and resources to evaluate utility, lawn, and garden equipment.
 Their equipment fleet consisted of 177 units ranging from three horsepower handheld
 trimmers to 17 horsepower tractors, with both two-cycle and four-cycle engine designs.

       The engines listed in the following table were used for in use testing of Phase II
 RFG.  Most of the engines are used in brush cutters, mowers, gas-powered hedge
 trimmers, chainsaws, backpack leaf blowers, generators, rototillers, edgers, vacuum
 blowers, and pruners, and had horsepower ratings between three and eight.  Four units
 are small tractors with horsepower ratings between 12 and 17.  Eighteen of the 177
 units meet EPA's emission  regulations for small handheld engines (40 CFR 90); all 18
 units were manufactured by Stihl.
                   Table 5 - Arlington County Nonroad Engines
Number of Units
60
35
30
25
15
4
4
4*
Engine Make
Stihl
Kawasaki
Briggs and Stratton
Tecumseh
Honda
Tanaka
Yamaha
Kohler
Engine Type
two-cycle
two-cycle
four-cycle
four-cycle
four-cycle
two-cycle
two-cycle
four-cycle
      ' Tractors
      The test fuel for this equipment was the summer fuel oxygenated with MTBE.
The fuel was delivered on August 28, 1998 to a storage tank at the County water
treatment plant.. To aid equipment refueling, a pickup truck was used as a mobile
fueling station. A 100 gallon fuel tank in the back of the truck was used to fuel two-
cycle engines, and  six five-gallon cans were used to fuel four-cycle engines. The truck
tank and cans were refilled at the main storage tank as necessary. Each refill of the
100 gallon tank included the addition of two-cycle engine oil at a gasoline/oil ratio of 40
                                      18

-------
to one.  During the test period, Quaker State Itasca two-cycle engine oil was used.

      The performance testing consisted of fueling the engines with Phase II RFG and
operating them normally. The fuel was replenished as needed.  Any performance
problems encountered were to be reported. The testing period began on September 1
and continued until the test fuel was expended during the third week in November. The
amount of use for each piece of equipment was not recorded. The primary activities
during the testing period consisted of lawn maintenance, leaf removal, and ball field
maintenance.

      During the testing period, 185 gallons of Phase II RFG were consumed.
Assuming  a maximum fuel consumption rate of about one-half gallon per hour,  testing
consisted of more than 370 hours of operation.

      No performance-related incidents occurred during the test period.  The
equipment supervisor reported that there were no perceptible changes in engine
performance and no indications of leaks.

      B.    Marine Engines

      Approximately 3,800 gallons of summer fuel oxygenated with MTBE were
provided to four Mercury Marine testing facilities in Wisconsin, Florida, and Oklahoma,
and two materials testing locations in Illinois and North Carolina. The engines tested
ranged from small two-cycle, 25 horsepower outboard engines to large four-cycle, 500
horsepower inboard and stern drive engines.

      Small two-cycle outboard engines were tested for startability and running quality,
with storage at cool temperatures. Cool temperatures were those lower than are
typical for summer fuel. The field testing in November 1998 in Wisconsin with summer
fuel captured the temperature conditions that are characterized as  the fall shoulder
season. Testing consisted of start-up, warm-up, idle quality, and running quality
phases. The engines were mounted on a dock for the four-phase test and then moved
to an outdoor storage rack for 40  hours to stabilize at ambient conditions, in a
temperature range of 35 to 55 degrees. The engines were then returned to the dock
and startability testing was conducted.  No performance problems with Phase II RFG
were reported.

      In addition to field testing, engine dynamometer testing was conducted with two-
cycle outboard engines.  A dynamometer is a device that simulates the resistance the
engine would experience under normal operating conditions. The dynamometer tests
measured the maximum power produced using the summer test fuel and a baseline fuel
known as  indolene.  No noticeable difference in operating performance was found.
                                      19

-------
       Large four-cycle engines were also tested using both test and baseline fuels.
 The tests measured power output using an engine dynamometer and found no
 significant difference between the fuels.

       Testing of fuel system materials was done by Airtex and Magnetti Morelli.
 Gaskets and other fuel system materials were tested. No detrimental effects were
 reported.
VI.    Motorcycle Test Program

       Over 1,700 gallons of summer fuel oxygenated with MTBE were provided to
Harley-Davidson for laboratory testing of six current model motorcycles, on-road
performance testing of six privately-owned motorcycles, and materials compatibility
testing. The Harley-Davidson motorcycles listed in the following table were used for
laboratory testing of Phase II RFG.
            Table 6 - Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Tested in Laboratory
Number
2
2
2
Year
1997
1998
1998
Model
Sportster
FLT/HT
FLT/HT
Engine (cc)
1200
1450
1450
Fuel System
Carburetor
Carburetor
Fuel Injection
      The laboratory testing consisted of performance tests on six motorcycles using
the test fuel and a baseline fuel known as indolene. Testing was conducted using a
chassis dynamometer, a device that allows the motorcycle to remain stationary while
the rear wheel turns a drum that provides resistance to simulate the resistance of the
motorcycle and rider on the highway.  The rider operates the motorcycle as though it
were on the highway by shifting gears and adjusting the throttle to follow a graph on a
video screen. Acceleration, driveability, and startability were evaluated during these
tests. No significant difference in performance was observed between the baseline fuel
and Phase II RFG.                                                          ;"

      On-road testing was conducted by Harley-Davidson employees on their own
Harley-Davidson motorcycles.  The Harley-Davidson motorcycles listed in the following
table were used for on-road testing of Phase II RFG.
                                      20

-------
               Table 7 - Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Tested On-road
Year
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1999
Model ID
FLHT
FLHTC
FLHTCUi
FLTR
FLTRI
FLTR
Model Name
Electra Glide
Electra Glide
Classic
Ultra Classic
Road Glide
Road Glide
Road Glide
Type
Touring
Touring
Touring
Touring
Touring
Touring
Engine (cc)
1450
1450
1450
1450
1450
1450
Starting
Odometer
675
12,500
1,300
9,000
2,000
150
Accumulated
Miles
1,575
1,200
500
2,500
700
500
      The test period with the summer test fuel was from mid-October until the end of
November in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area, although summer fuel is not provided to
retail stations after September 15. The daily temperatures for the on-road testing
period are listed in Appendix N. Performance was evaluated using both the test fuel
and a commercially available fuel. No performance problems with Phase II RFG were
reported.

      Materials compatibility tests were done on three sets of fuel system elastomer
components. An independent laboratory tested the components by soaking them in
both the test fuel and a baseline gasoline and then measuring size changes. Paint
finish and decal compatibility tests were also performed using the test fuel and a
baseline fuel. Finished fuel tanks were placed in an outdoor rack and each fuel was
periodically spilled over a tank during a period of three weeks to determine the effect.
No detrimental effects were identified.
VII.   Conclusion

      All available data indicate that consumers should experience no difference in
performance or fuel economy when Phase II RFG replaces Phase I RFG.

      EPA tested in use vehicles in three cities over a period of three to five months.
The combined test fleet drove over one million miles with Phase II RFG.  Out of a
combined fleet of 374 vehicles,  six component-related incidents occurred during the
course of the testing program. Five of the six incidents were deemed unrelated to the
use of Phase II RFG by the relevant automobile manufacturer.  In the sixth incident, the
part in question was lost and the cause of its failure could not be determined.
                                      21

-------
       No problems with starting, running, idling, acceleration, or power were reported
by any fleet. One fleet manager described his fleet's use of Phase II RFC as
transparent; fleet users and the mechanical staff saw no change or effect (see
Appendix L).

       Studies have shown that incident rates increase with vehicle mileage,
irrespective of the fuel used. Vehicle maintenance is the key to good performance with
any fuel.

       In a separate study, SWRI compared fuel economy with Phase II RFC to Phase I
RFG. Fuel economy was measured for 12 vehicles of various makes, ages, mileage,
and fuel delivery systems. The vehicles were driven over fixed 50 mile urban and
suburban routes. Fuel usage was determined by using a flow meter to precisely
measure the total volume of fuel consumed during the 50 mile route. The results of this
study do not indicate any statistically significant fuel economy difference between the
fuels.

      The outcome of the SWRI study is consistent with other fuel economy studies,
and with EPA's analysis of test fleet fuel economy. Fuel economy is generally
proportional to the energy content of the fuel.  During the past few years, studies of the
fuel economy effects of reformulated gasolines with oxygenates, including laboratory
and on-road studies, have shown that the addition of two percent oxygen, by weight, to
gasoline results in a one to three percent fuel economy loss. In  this study, both
gasolines have essentially the same oxygen content and the same energy content.
Since the energy content difference between Phase I RFG and Phase II RFG is
expected to be minimal, the absence of an impact on the fuel economy measured  in
this study was expected.

      The Arlington County, Virginia Department of Parks and Natural Resources
provided the equipment and resources  to evaluate utility, lawn, and garden equipment.
Their equipment fleet consisted of 177  units ranging from three-horsepower handheld
trimmers to 17-horsepower tractors with both two-cycle and four-cycle engine designs.
Testing began September 1 and concluded the third week in November.  During the
testing period, 185 gallons of Phase II RFG were consumed. Assuming a maximum
fuel consumption rate of about  one-half gallon per hour, testing consisted of more than
370 hours of operation.  No performance-related incidents occurred during the test
period. The equipment supervisor reported that there were no perceptible changes in
engine performance and no indications of leaks.

      Performance and materials testing was conducted with motorcycles by Harley-
Davidson and with marine engines by Mercury Marine.  In both cases, outdoor testing in
Wisconsin occurred in the autumn with summer test fuel, capturing shoulder season
effects. The results indicate no performance problems with Phase II RFG.

                                      22

-------
      In summary, no difference in vehicle performance or fuel economy is expected
when Phase II RFC replaces Phase I RFG.  In addition, no difference in performance is
expected with small engines, marine engines, or motorcycles.
                                     23

-------
Appendix A

-------
              Phase II RFG Implementation Workgroup Members
                                 4/5/99
         AUTOMOBILE AND ENGINE COMPANIES AND ASSOCIATIONS

Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
John Cabaniss

Daimler Chrysler Corporation
Reg Modlin
Ann Schlenker

Ford Motor Company
Walt Kreucher
Shelley Scott

General Motors
Gary Herwick

Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers Association
Don Purcell

Tecumseh Products
Roger Gault

Toyota
John Shipinski

                 AUTOMOBILE AND FLEET ASSOCIATIONS

American  Automobile Association
David Van Sickle

National Association of Fleet Administrators
Pat O'Connor

           ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATIONS

American  Lung Association
Blake Early

Health Effects Institute
Robert O'Keefe

-------
 Natural Resources Defense Council
 Janet Hathaway

            OIL AND OXYGENATE COMPANIES AND ASSOCIATIONS

 BP Amoco
 Bob Schaefer

 American Methanol Institute
 Ray Lewis

 ARCO
 Dan Hisey

 American Petroleum Institute
 Paul Argyropoulos
 Ed Murphy

 Equiva Services
 Ron Benton
 Mike Kulakowski

 Information Resources, Inc.
 David Holt

 National Petrochemical & Refiners Association
 Terry Higgins

 Oxygenated Fuels Association
 Charlie Drevna

 Petroleum Marketers Association of America
 John Huber

 Renewable Fuels Association
 Eric Vaughn

 Service Station Dealers Association
 Roy Littlefteld

 Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America
 Greg Scott

Texaco
Michael Redemer

-------
                          SERVICE TECHNICIANS
 Service Technicians Society
 David Solomon

                    STATES AND STATE ASSOCIATIONS

 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
 Ira Domsky

 California Air Resources Board
 Peter Venturini

 Georgia Department of Natural Resources
 Marlin Gottschalk

 Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection
John Hornback

 National Association of State Energy Officials
 Frank Bishop

 Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
Arthur Marin

 Ozone Transport Commission
 Bruce Carhart

 STAPPA/ALAPCO
 Bill Becker

 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
 Dennis Koepke
 Bob Lopez
                            U.S. GOVERNMENT
Department of Energy
Barry McNutt

Environmental Protection Agency
Debbie Wood

-------
Appendix B

-------
                   Phase II RFG Implementation Workgroup
                                Testing Team
 Paul Argyropoulos
 American Petroleum Institute

 John Cabaniss
 Association of International Automobile Manufacturers

 Bruce Carhart
 Ozone Transport Commission

Jim Carter
Automotive Testing & Development Services

Bob Dinneen
Renewable Fuels Association

Roger Gault
Tecumseh Products

Larry Haslett
Environmental Protection Agency

Gary Herwick
General Motors

Jim Hyde
New York Department of Environmental Conservation

J. Harold Idell
FedEx Corporation

Bob King
Sun Company, Inc.

Dave Korotney
Environmental Protection Agency

Mike Kul?kowski
 Equiva Services

 Dennis Koepke
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

-------
Arthur Marin
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management

Ed Murphy
American Petroleum Institute

Pat O'Connor
National Association of Fleet Administrators

Bob O'Keefe
Health Effects Institute

Tony Pastor
Star Enterprise

Ann Schlenker
Daimler Chrysler Corporation

John Shipinski
Toyota

Shelley Scott
Ford Motor Company

Peter Venturini
California Air Resources Board

Debbie Wood
Environmental Protection Agency

4/5/99

-------
Appendix C

-------
                   Phase II RFG Implementation Workgroup
                        Technical Steering Committee

Paul Argyropoulos
American Petroleum Institute

Barry Garelick
Environmental Protection Agency

Larry Haslett
Environmental Protection Agency

Gary Herwick
General Motors

Jim Hyde
New York Department of Environmental Conservation

Dave Korotney
Environmental Protection Agency

Mike Kulakowski
Equiva Services

Dennis Koepke
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Arthur Marin
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management

Ed Murphy
American Petroleum  Institute

Pat O'Connor
National Association  of Fleet Administrators

Shelley Scott                       '
Ford Motor Company

Peter Venturini
California Air Resources Board

Debbie Wood
Environmental Protection Agency
4/5/99

-------
Appendix D

-------
                 Evaluation of On-Highway Motor Vehicles
           Operated on Federal Phase II Reformulated Gasoline


 I.      INTRODUCTION

       The purpose of this test program is to identify performance issues which may be
 associated with the operation of vehicles on federal Phase II reformulated gasoline
 (RFC), before the fuel is introduced beginning January 1, 2000.  This test program will
 be supplemented with data gathered in California's Compatibility and Performance
 Study for California Phase 2 RFC.

       To evaluate the performance of Phase II RFG in current vehicles, in-use studies
 are proposed.  The studies will monitor the use of Phase II RFG in various vehicles
 driven  on their normal daily routes.  Control fleets that match the size and make up of
 the test fleets, operated on market-available gasoline, will also be monitored for
 comparative analyses. Four methods of data collection will be employed for the
 purpose of performance evaluation:

      (1) Records of incidents related to driveability and  performance reported by
         drivers or users.
      (2) Visual inspection surveys taken on a bimonthly basis for each study vehicle.
      (3) Maintenance records, both historical and during the study period.
      (4) Individual vehicle volumetric fuel consumption and cumulative mileage or
         actual odometer changes.

All data will be statistically analyzed to quantify impacts which are specific to the use of
 Phase  II RFG.  The test program will cover a wintertime fueling period followed by a
 spring and early summer fueling period with the transition occurring as would normally
 occur in accordance with existing and future regulatory requirements.
II     OBJECTIVE

      The objective of this test program is to evaluate the performance of vehicles
currently in use, when operated on Phase II RFG, as compared to being operated on
currently available Phase I RFG.  If performance issues associated with Phase II fuel
are identified during the course of the study, the test program will include a more
specific investigation of these issues.

-------
Ill    VEHICLES

      a. Description of vehicles

      Privately and/or publicly-owned fleets of vehicles will be solicited to participate in
this test program. These fleets will be located in Boston, Chicago, and Houston. Fleets
in each city will be divided  into test and control fleets of approximately equal size; there
will be approximately 100 vehicles in Boston and Chicago, and 200 vehicles in
Houston, for a total of 400. The technology and age distribution of the vehicles will
approximate the national distribution, to the extent possible.

      b. Vehicle inspections

      Before the Phase II  RFC performance study begins, each study vehicle shall
undergo a visual inspection. As described  in the instructions for the various data
collection forms, the inspection will verify the identity and classification of the vehicle, as
well as identify obvious defects which should be noted and considered during the
analysis phase of the study. A "Vehicle Description  Log" will be  used to record the
identity and classification of the test and control vehicles.  A preliminary "Fuel System
Inspection Log" will also be completed for each study vehicle before testing begins to
document the cpndition of the fuel system components. The Vehicle Description Log
and Fuel System Inspection Log will be completed by EPA. EPA inspectors will be
trained on how to properly  perform vehicle inspections and will be specifically instructed
not to disturb or tamper with any of the components under study.
IV    FUELS

      a. Description of fuels

      For these studies the baseline fuels will be the gasolines normally purchased by
the fleet operators.  The Phase II RFG which will be used in these studies should meet
all the standards for Phase II RFG as listed in 40 CFR Part 80, Section 41, and contain
detergent additives approved by EPA at commercial doses. The target properties for
the test fuels are shown in Table 1 below. The actual test fuel properties will be
approved by an executive review committee before the test fuels are produced.

-------
                       Table 1 - Target Test Fuel Properties

Oxygen, wt%

RVP, psi
Sulfur, ppm
Aromatics, vol%
Olefins, vol%
Benzene, vol%
T10, F
T50, F
T90, F
(E200, vol%)
(E300, vol%)
Octane, (R+M)/2
Summer
MTBE
2.1

6.6
150
24
11
0.8
133
197
320
(52)
(84)
>87
Summer
MTBE
+TAME
1.6 (MTBE)
0.5 (TAME)
6.6
150
24
11
0.8
133
196
320
(52)
(84)
>87
Winter
MTBE
2.1

12.8
310
23
12
0.9
110
195
324
(53)
(83)
>87
Winter
Ethanol
3.5

13.3
300
25
12
0.8
108
191
324
(55)
(83)
>87
These fuel properties represent typical properties expected for Phase II RFC complying
on average.  Each fuel in the table will be used in a different city, and it is possible that
not all fuels shown in the table will be required in this study.  Also, to ensure that the
fuel represents that which will actually be sold in RFG areas, the fuel should be
produced from proportions of refinery blending components similar to proportions
expected in 2000. These blending proportions are shown in Table 2.

            	  Table 2 - Blendstock blending fractions	.
             Reformate
             St. run naphtha
             Isomerate
             FCC naphtha
             Hydrocrackate
             Alkylate
             Dimate
             Raffinate
                                         Maximum volume percent
                                        of blendstock in final test fuel
29
15
4
35
4
18
1
3
Finally, all test fuel properties must fall within prescribed ranges to ensure that the fuels
represent expected average Phase II RFG fuels and meet ASTM guidelines.  The

-------
allowable ranges for summer and winter fuels are shown in Table 3. No test fuel
properties can fall outside the ranges given in Table 3.
                     Table 3 - Allowable ranges for Test Fuels

Oxygen
RVP, psi
Sulfur, ppm
Aromatics, vol%
Olefins, vol%
Benzene, vol%
T10, F
T50, F
T90, F
Summer
MTBE
2.0 +
6.4-6.8
125-175
23 - 25
10-12
0.6-1.0
125-145
190-210
305 - 335
Summer
MTBE
+TAME
2.0 +
6.4-6.8
125-175
23-25
10-12
0.6-1.0
125-145
190-210
305 - 335
Winter
MTBE
2.0 +
12.3-13.3
285 - 335
22-24
11 -13
0.6-1.1
100-120
190-210
305 - 335
Winter
Ethanol
2.0 +
12.8-13.8
275 - 325
24-26
11 -13
0.6-1.0
100-120
180-200
305 - 335
      A switch from the winter test fuel to the summer test fuel will occur in each area
at a time designated by EPA.  At that time, the summer test fuel and the summer
control fuel will be added to whatever amounts of winter fuels are in the fleet operator's
underground tanks.

      b. Fuel storage and distribution

      A central location may be used to receive and store the test fuel for each test
fleet.  The test fuel will be shipped by tank truck to the fleet operators. A fuel distributor
will be designated to deliver the test fuel to locations where the test fuel is dispensed.

      c. Fuel sampling and analysis

      EPA-appointed inspectors will obtain samples from the bulk storage tanks of the
test fuel and/or control fuel at the fueling facilities.  Fuelsamples are to be taken using
approved EPA procedures whenever fuel is deposited into the fleet operator's storage
tanks, or on a bimonthly basis, whichever is more frequent. Test fuel and control (local)
fuel will be sampled at the same time.

      Whenever a performance-related problem is reported via the Driveability Incident
Log, a sample of fuel from the vehicle's tank should be taken. EPA will provide the fleet
operators  all the equipment needed to collect the fuel samples, as well as protocols for
handling and shipping the sample to EPA for analysis.

-------
V     DATA COLLECTION

      Vehicle operators will be provided with fuel in such a way that they are unaware
of which type of fuel (test or control) they are using. This may require that local fuel be
added to bulk storage tanks for centralized refueling by each control fleet. Operators
will be ordered to refuel only at approved dispensers during the period of the study.
Operators will then drive the vehicles on the routes typically followed for that vehicle or
fleet.

      Four types of data will be collected for both test and control vehicles:

      1.  EPA inspectors will visually inspect each study vehicle bimonthly.  Upon
         completion of each inspection, the EPA inspectors will complete and submit
         the Fuel System Inspection Log to document the condition of the vehicle's
         fuel system.  The Fuel System Inspection Log  will be completed and
         submitted by EPA inspectors on a continuous  basis so data may be
         processed as soon as possible.

      2.  A "Driveability Incident Log" will be completed  by the fleet operator's
         maintenance personnel for any potentially fuel-related performance problems
         reported by the vehicle operator. Upon a report of an incident (component
         failure or performance problems) the vehicle will be removed from service
         and inspected by fleet maintenance personnel to determine if the problem is
         potentially fuel related. The vehicle will be repaired according to normal
         procedures, and any replaced parts will be retained.  If possible, a fuel
         sample will also be taken from the gas tank.  A copy of the repair invoice
         should be attached to the "Driveability Incident Log" and submitted to EPA for
         data retrieval, along with the replaced parts and fuel sample. The
         "Driveability Incident Log" along with the repair invoice will be used to
         determine the number and causes for fuel related performance problems.

      3.  The third method of data collection is the review of historical maintenance
         and repair records obtained from fleet operators. Electronic retrieval of .this .
         data is possible from some of the fleets. Some fleets may have only paper
         copies of records. Any available historical records should be retrieved and
         provided to EPA prior to the commencement of the study. Records of
         maintenance and repairs occurring during the study period should be
         collected monthly and provided to EPA for processing.

      4.  The fourth method of data collection will consist of a "Refueling Report" to be
         completed by the fleet operator's fueling personnel for each test and control
         vehicle, each time fueling occurs. The Refueling Report will include the date,
         the odometer reading, and the amount of fuel provided.  A summary of

-------
         historical data on fuel consumed and the change in odometer readings over a
         stated period for test and control vehicles will be provided by the fleet
         operator.
VI    DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING

      Survey data and maintenance records should be provided by the fleet operator
every month to EPA.  A final report will be issued by EPA following the conclusion of
the study. It is envisioned that the final report will include responses totaled for each
survey and maintenance field and that each response should be reported as a fraction,
or rate, of total responses for each survey and maintenance response category. The
data should be analyzed independently for test groups and control groups. At a
minimum, study results should be plotted as the incidence rates in the test group versus
control group for each response category and each vehicle or equipment classification
over the study period.

-------
                             FLEET DESCRIPTION
                                    (completed by EPA representatives)


Fleet Name:	              Fleet Code:

Fleet contact person: 	

Phone Number: (	)	

Street address:	

City:	    Zip Code:	
Winter Fueling - Start date:    /    /    	 (mm/dd/yy hhmm, i.e. 02/18/98 0645 - 24 hr clock)


Summer Fueling Start:    /    /    	 (mm/dd/yy  hhmm)
                                             7

-------
                                VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
                                        (completed by EPA reps)
 Fleet:
                Date:
Veh. year:

Odom:
   Mfr:
         Model:
                     Inspector:
                        Veh lie #:
              VIN:
       Trans:  Auto or Man      Veh type: Car or Truck or MC      Fuel group: D2 or
Body: (sticker on door or door jam)

Build Date:                 GVW:
Engine compartment:  (sticker under hood)

Engine Family:	 Emiss Cert yr:

Fuel System:  Fuel inj  or  TBI  or   Carb
                                         #Cyls.
                                         Dispm't:
                                   liters or cu.in.
Emission control device check:
CCO:_
Other:
              DVAS:
EWL:
              TAG:
OC:
              EVP:
       PCV:
       EGR:
       02S:
TWC:
EFE:
FR:
AI = air inj sys     DVAS = diverter valve air sw.     TAG = thermostatic air cleaner
PCV = positive c'case vent valve     EGR = exh gas recirc valve   O2S = oxygen sensor
EWL = engine warning or check eng light     OC = oxidation cat     TWC = 3-way cat
FR = fuel filler neck restrictor
Comments:
                                                       EVP = evap. emiss sys
                                                       CCO = computer control
                                                       EFE = early fuel evap sys
Vehicle fleet records:

Odo: Winter Start:
                     Summer Start:
                            End Test:
Fuel quantity used:     Winter Test:
                           Summer Test:
Fuel Econ:
Winter/Test: _
Summer/Test:
  MPG
    MPG
Removed from program - reason:
Ending date, if removed from program:
Winter/Historical:	MPG
Summer/Historical:      MPG
                                                8

-------
Fleet:
Veh Year:

Odom:
                      FUEL SYSTEM INSPECTION LOG
                                        (completed by EPA reps)
     Date:
     Inspector:
Make:
             Model:
    Fuel group: D2 Or  D3  (circle one)
Veh lie #:
Fuel System Inspection:
Fuel Tank
Fuel Lines and Hoses
Fuel Filter(s)
Fuel Pump
Fuel in Crankcase, smell dipstick
Pass/Fail
(circle one)
P / F
P / F
P / F
P / F
Severity (set
(circle one)
S / D / R)
S / D / R)
S / D / R)
S / D / R)
           Yes or No
Fuel Odor(s)
     Yes or No
Comments:
Fuel Injection System:


Fuel Injectors:

Throttle body injector unit:

Other fuel inj. components:

Comments:
   Pass/Fail        Severity (seep or drip or run)

    P / F          S / D / R)

    P / F          S / D / R)

    P / F          S / D / R)
Carbureted fuel systems: yes / no

                        Pass/Fail

Carburetor                 P / F
    Accelerator pump:

Comments:
     P / F
Severity (seep or drip or run)

S / D / R)

S / D / R)

-------
                        DRIVEABILITY INCIDENT LOG
                                        (completed by fleet operator)
Fleet:
  Date of driveability incident:
              Driver:
Veh lie #:

Odom:
Veh. make:
Model:
  Fuel group: D2 Or D3 (circle one)
Weather conditions on date of incident:
Yr:
Type of Performance Problems:

If a driveability problem ocurred, please provide a description


Hesitation:    	         	
Surge:

Stall:

Odor:

Noise:

Other
Driving Mode -  when performance problems occurred:

Highway Driving:  Yes  or No             City Driving:  Yes or No

Cold Starting:     Yes  or No             Hot Starting:  Yes or No

Morning Driving:  Yes  or No      Afternoon Driving: Yes or No        Evening Driving: Yes or No

Idle: Yes or No         Acceleration: Yes  or No        Cruise: Yes or No

Additional Comments:	.
 Date of resulting (or next) vehicle inspection:
                                Inspector:
                            Odom:
                                              10

-------
                             Fuel System Repair Summary
                                      (completed by fleet maintenance personnel)
 Fleet:	  Name:	 Fuel group: D2 or  D3 (circle one)
 Vehlic#:	   Veh. make:	  Model:	   Yr:	
 Repair Date:    /   /      Odom:	
 Description of malfunction and symptoms:
Did the repairs and adjustments involve any of the following components?         Yes or No (circle one)
If yes, please describe.
Fuel tank: 	'	
Fuel lines, hoses: 	
Fuel filter(s):	
Fuel pump:	
Fuel injectors:
Fuel inj sys:  _
Carburetor: 	
Accel pump:
Fuel in Crankcase:
Seals:
How was the problem diagnosed?
Was a repair made to correct the problem?      Yes or No
If yes, what repair was made? 	
If repairs were made, were the replaced parts kept?   Yes or No or Not applicable
Was a fuel sample taken following the incident?    Yes or No
If yes, from which of the following tanks was the sample taken?
From vehicle's tank? Y or  N    From the dispenser/storage tank where vehicle was last refueled:     Y  or N

                                                11

-------
                          VEHICLE REFUELING REPORT
                              (completed by driver or other vehicle refilling personnel)

Veh Lie #:                   Make:                        Model:
Name	  Date          Odometer     Gallons added   Gasoline tank/dispenser
                                           12

-------
                   BULK STORAGE REFUELING REPORT
                                (completed by fleet operator)

Name	   Date          Gallons added       Storage tank used
                                      13

-------
Appendix E

-------
Fuels Comparison
Fuel Parameter
RVP (psi)
Sulfur (ppm)
Oxygen (w%)
Aromatics (vol%)
Olefins (vol%)
Benzene (vol%)
E200 (%)
E300 (%)
T50 (F)
T90 (F)
Conventional
Gasoline1
8.7/7.8
339
<0.5
32
13
1.5
41
83


Phase I
RFG2
8.0/7.1
305
2.1
27
12
0.95
49
87


Phase II
RFG3
6.7
140
2.1
25
12
0.95
49
87


CaRFG Phase 2
Flat Limits
7.0
40
1.8-2.2
25
6.0
1.0


210
300
CaF
Marl
7.0
30
1.9
24
4.9
0.81


206
298
         Based on statutory baseline.



       2 Estimate used to set standards.



       3 Estimate used to set standards.



       4 March, April, and May 1997 production weighted average.

-------
Appendix F

-------
                    Phase II RFG Fleet Testing Program
                           STATEMENT OF WORK
 BACKGROUND
       One of the requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments is the reformulated
gasoline (RFG) program. The purpose of the RFG program is to improve air quality by requiring
that gasoline sold in certain areas of the country be reformulated to reduce emissions of toxics and
tropospheric ozone-forming compounds, as specified by section 211(k). Section 211(k) mandates
that RFG be sold in specific metropolitan areas with the most severe summertime ozone levels;
RFG must also be sold in any ozone nonattainment area reclassified as a severe area, and in other
areas that choose to participate or "opt in" to the program. The Clean Air Act further requires that
conventional gasoline sold in the  rest of the country not become any more polluting than it was in
1990 by requiring that each refiner's and importer's gasoline be as clean, on  average, as it was in
1990.  This has resulted in regulatory requirements referred to as the anti-dumping program.
Phase I of the RFG program began in January 1995 and will be replaced by Phase II in January
2000.  Phase  II RFG will achieve even greater reductions in volatile organic  compounds (VOCs),
oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and toxics than Phase I.

      The  Phase II RFG Implementation Workgroup has been established by the Clean Air Act
Advisory Committee's Mobile Source Technical Review Subcommittee.  To  ensure a wide range
of input on the  implementation of Phase II  RFG,  this workgroup  has broad stakeholder
representation, including vehicle and fuel users, vehicle and engine  manufacturers, the fuel
industry, environmental and public health groups, and state agencies and associations. The goal
of the workgroup  is to ensure the smoothest transition possible to  Phase II RFG by working
together to gather data and to communicate that data to the public.

      The workgroup has recommended a fleet testing program to evaluate performance and fuel
economy with in-use vehicles operated on Phase II RFG, compared to being operated on currently
available Phase I RFG.  The test  plan developed by the workgroup for the fleet testing program is
included as Attachment A. The purpose of the fleet testing program is to determine whether any
vehicle performance issues exist  that may be associated with the operation of vehicles on Phase
II RFG, compared to Phase I RFG, before the fuel is introduced into commerce by January 1, 2000.

PURPOSE

      The  purpose of this work  assignment is to provide EPA with vehicle performance and fuel
economy data from fleet testing  conducted according to the plan described  in Attachment A.

       EPA and the fleet operator expect that the fleet operator will be provided with test fuel by
a gasoline manufacturer on an as needed basis up to a quantity consistent with the fleet operator's
historical monthly consumption noted below, beginning in June 1998 and ending in August 1998
at the fleet operator's facility located at Houston Power and Light (hereinafter "facility").

-------
        EPA will provide to the fleet operator all data collection forms to be used in the fleet testing
 program. These forms are included in Attachment A. EPA will provide training to the fleet operator
 regarding the necessary procedures  required to  complete the " Driveability Incident Log" and
 "Fueling Report" forms.

        EPA, in cooperation with the fleet operator, will complete the "Fuel System Inspection Logs"
 on a bimonthly basis.

       Technical support provided by EPA may include fuel system evaluations,  and engineering
 and engine/fuel  system repair consultations.

 Task 1 -- Identify appropriate test fleet

       The fleet operator shall identify an appropriate test fleet, including test and control vehicles.

 Task 2 - Vehicle inspection

       The fleet operator shall make the test fleet vehicles available for inspection by  EPA at
 reasonable times on a bimonthly basis.

 Task 3 - Incident reports

       The fleet operator shall provide a completed "Driveability Incident Log" form  and related
information to EPA for each incident in which a vehicle that is part of this program is removed from
service to diagnose a complaint about a condition that is possibly related to fuel. A sample of fuel
from the vehicle's tank shall be taken. If a repair is made, a copy of the repair order or invoice shall
accompany the log form. Any replaced parts that can be linked with the incident logged shall be
tagged and retained by the fleet operator for analysis by EPA.

       The fleet operator  shall provide access to past and current  maintenance records, if
 available, for each vehicle in the program.

 Task 4 - Fuel economy data

       The fleet operator shall provide EPA with fleet aggregate volumetric fuel consumption
 records on a monthly basis.

       The fleet operator shall record individual vehicle fuel consumption and changes in odometer
 readings. The initial odometer reading shall occur when a vehicle first enters this testing program.
 The date, odometer reading, and gallons delivered shall be recorded at each fueling.

       The fleet operator shall provide a summary of recent historical data (1996 and 1997) related
 to fuel economy for each test program vehicle for which valid data exists.  The data are volumetric
 fuel consumption and cumulative mileage, or actual odometer changes, both over a stated period.

-------
Task 5 - Fuel

       The fleet operator shall take reasonable measures to ensure that vehicles intended to use
test fuel do not receive other fuel. The fleet operator may use other fuels in the event that test fuel
is not available, in emergency situations.  Likewise, the fleet operator shall take reasonable steps
to ensure that participating control vehicles do not receive test fuel.

       The fleet operator shall allow EPA to obtain samples from its bulk storage tanks of the test
fuel and control fuel at the fueling facilities whenever fuel is deposited into the fleet operator's
storage tanks, or on a bimonthly basis, whichever is more frequent. Refueling receptacles shall
be approved vapor recovery systems if required by state law.
Attachment A: Test plan

-------
Appendix G

-------
 MPR-17-1998 22=23
                                               P. 03
      Certificate of  Analysis
      PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY
      A WVISWN OF PHILUPS PTfXUM COMPANY
      SPECIALTY CHEMICALS
      P.O. BOX 968
      BORGER TX 79008-0968
    TESTS
API Gravity
Specific Gravity, 60/60
Sulfur ppm
MTBE, LV%
Reid Vapor Pressure
Benzene Content, LV%
                                OXYGENATED TEST GAS
                                      LOT D-340
RESULTS
61.85
0.7318
298
11.7
12.8
0.98
SPECIFICATIONS
Report
Report
285 - 335
11.0-12.0
123-13.3
0.6-1.0
                                  DATE OF SHIPMENT
                                  03-06-98

                                  CUSTOMER ORDER NO.
                                  98BO-1

                                  INV./REQN. NO.
                                  480659

                                  TRLR #380
METHOD
ASTM D-1298
ASTM D-4052
ASTM D-2622
ASTMD-4815
ASTM D-323
DISTILLATION. D-86 "F

    IBP                       86.2
    5%                       96.7
    10%                      106.5
    20%                      1226
    30%                      143.3
    40%                      164.8
    50%                      190.3
    60%                      222.1
    70%                      257.1
    80%                      291.5
    90%                      331.3
    95%                      367.9
    EP                       409.3
    Loss                      1.7
    Residue                   0.9

HYDROCARBON TYPE, VOL. %

    Aromatics                  23.85
    *0tefins                   10.5
         this will be modified for future shipments.

    Research Octane Number      95.5
    Motor Octane Number         85.9
    Antiknock Index             90.7

DGD:jam
03/18/98
MF6500
                                  ASTM D-86
                 100-120
                 190-210
                 305 - 335
                  SPEC
                 22-24
                 11 -13
                 Report
                 Report
                 Report
                                  ASTMD-1319
                  ASTM D-2699
                  ASTM D-2700
                                                                              FOBM WB6.N W-

                                                                         TOTAL P.03

-------
 ,~1ftR-17-1998  22=23
                                                                        P.02
      Certificate of Analysis
      PHILUPS CHEMICAL COMPANY
      A DIVISION OF PHILUPS PETROLEUM COMPANY
      SPECIALTY CHEMICALS
      P.O. BOX 968
      BORGER. TX 79008-0968
    TESTS
API Gravity
Specific Gravity, 60/60
Sulfur ppm
Ethanol. LV%
Reid Vapor Pressure
Benzene Content, LV%

DISTILLATION, D-86 F

    IBP
    5%
    10%
    20%
    30%
    40%
    50%
    60%
    70%
    80%
    90%
    95%
    EP
    Loss
    Residue

HYDROCARBON TYPE. VOL. %

    Aromatics
    Olefins
    Saturates

    Research Octane Number
    Motor Octane Number
    Antiknock Index

DGDijam
03/18/98
MF6500
DATE OF SHIPMENT
03-06-98

CUSTOMER ORDER NO.
98EG-1

INV./REQN. NO.
480740

TRLR *334
                              OXYGENATED TEST GAS
RESULTS
59.6
0.7406
309
9.74
13.1
0.999
88.7
101.6
110.4
128.3
145.2
155.4
182.7
236.9
266.5
298.6
335.3
374.4
411.6
1.7
1.0
252
11.0
95.25
85.1
90.2
LOT D-368
SPECIFICATIONS
Report
Report
275 - 325
9.5-10.5
12.8-13.8
0.6-1.0
100-120
180-200
305-335
SPEC
24-26
11 -13
Report
Report
Report
METHOD
ASTM D-1298
ASTM D-4052
ASTM D-4294
Chromatography
ASTM D-323
ASTM D-86
ASTM D-1319
ASTM D-2699
ASTM D-2700
                                                                           FORM 8828-N 04-34

-------
      Certificate  of Analysis
      PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY
      A DIVISION OF PHILUPS PETROLEUM COMPANY
      SPECIALTY CHEMICALS
      P.O. BOX 968
      BORGER, TX 79008-0968
                                                              DATE OF SHIPMENT
                                  CUSTOMER ORDER NO.
                                  INV./REQN. NO.
                                                              MFC DATE; 05-29-98
    TESTS
API Gravity
Specific Gravity, 60/60
Sulfur, ppm
MTBE, lv%
Reid Vapor Pressure
Benzene Content, lv%
                               OXYGENATED TEST GAS
                                 LOT D-517 (AMENDED^
RESULTS
59.4
0.7414
155
11.2
6.8
1.0
SPECIFICATIONS
Report
Report
125-175
1 1 - 1~2
6.4-6.8
0.6-1.0
METHOD
ASTMD-1298
ASTM D-4052
ASTM D-2622
ASTM D-4815
ASTM D-323

DISTILLATION. D-86 F
    IBP                      105.0
    5%                      129.2
    10%                     139.7
    20%                     154.6
    30%                     169.4
    40%                     186.1
    50%                     205.7
    60%                     228.7
    70%                     252.1
    80%                     279.5
    90%                     312.5
    95%                     343.2
    EP                      388.7
    Loss                       1.4
    Residue                    0.9

HYDROCARBON TYPE. VOL. %
    Aromatics                 24.5
    Olefins                   12
    Saturates

    Research Octane Number      96.2
    Motor Octane Number        85.7
                                 ASTM D-86
                125-145
                190-210
                305 - 335
                                  ASTMD-1319
                23-25
                10-12
                Report
                Report
ASTM D-2699
ASTM D-2700
DGD:jam
06/29/98
MF6500
                                                                             FORM M26-N CU

-------
 flUG-12-1998  06=18
3>







m
Certificate of Analysis
PHILLIPS CHEMICAL
COMPANY

A DIVISION OF PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY
SPECIALTY CHEMICALS
P.O. BOX 968
BORGER, TX 79008-0968






OXYGENATED TEST GAS ( EPA J (21

FESTS
API Gravity
Specific Gravity, 60/60
Sulfur ppm
MTBE
TAME
,LV%
. LB%
Oxygen Content
Oxidation Stability(min)
Existent Gums (mg/100ml)
Reid Vapor Pressure
TEL (ml/gal)
Benzene Content, LV%

RESULTS
60.18
0.7382
169
10.81
3.288
2.4
1440+
.6
6.75
0.001
1.0
LOT D-628
SPECIFICATIONS
Report
Report
125-175
8-10
2-4
Report
1440 min
<5 washed
6.3-6.9
0.005 Max.
0.6-1.0
DISTILLATION. D-86 T
IBP
5%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
95%
EP
Loss
Residue
103.6
130.0
138.5
150.4
161.9
175.1
192.7
215.2
242.0
271.8
308.2
335.8
382.3
0.4
1.0


123-143



186-206



305 - 335




HYDROCARBON TYPE. VOL. %


Aromatics
Olefins
Research Octane Number
Motor Octane Number
Antiknock Index
23.5,
13.0
96.3
85.7
91
22-25
10-13
Report
Report
>87
                                                                            P. 02

                                                               DATE OF SHIPMENT


                                                               CUSTOMER ORDER NO.


                                                               INV./REQN. NO.
                                                               METHOD
                                                               ASTM D-1298
                                                               ASTM D-4052
                                                               ASTM D-2622
                                                               ASTM D-4815

                                                               Chromatography
                                                               ASTM D-525
                                                               ASTM D-381
                                                               ASTM D-323
                                                               ASTM D-3237
                                                               ASTM D-86
                                                              ASTM D-1319
                                                               ASTM D-2699
                                                               ASTM D-2700
DGD:teh
08/03/58
MF6500

-------
Appendix H

-------
                                     Appendix H

Fuel Analyses conducted by the EPA National Vehicle and Fuels Emissions Laboratory
Page    Sample location     Date
                                       sason
                                                 Test/control
Comments
 --- 
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
Elk Grove Village
Elk Grove Village
Elk Grove Village
Elk Grove Village
Elk Grove Village
Phillips/Borger
Phillips/Borger
3/17/98
5/6/98
3/17/98
5/6/98
5/6/98
6/29/98
6/29/98
winter
winter
winter
winter
winter
summer
summer
control
control
test
test
test
test
test
after 1st fuel delivery
after 2nd fuel delivery
after 1 st fuel delivery
after 2nd fuel delivery
from car 238 at fuel
pump change
batch D628
MTBE + TAME
batchD517
MTBE only
     H8        Houston       9/4/98    summer        test
     H9        Houston       9/4/98    summer       control
     H10       Houston       9/4/98    summer       control
tests include gum and
peroxides

tests include gum and
peroxides

tests include acidity

-------
                         NVFEL Fuel Analysis - H1
FTAG: 7768  Village of Elk Grove - control fuel - commercial RFG1 - 3/17/98
     CODE                 TEST                 RESULT
     552    MTBE by OFID                          0.084
      55    MTBE by OFID                           0.46
      56    ETBE by OFID                               0
     562    ETBE by OFID                               0
     532    Ethanol by OFID                           8.5
     534    Ethanol by OFID                         3.178
      57    TAME by OFID                              0
     572    TAME by OFID                              0
     421    Sulfur in Gasoline by ASTM D 2622           219
      62    Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3      12.21
      65    Percent Evaporated at 200 Degrees F          49
      66    Percent Evaporated at 300 Degrees F         84.9
      48    Aromatics in Gasoline MSD D5769          26.459
      49    Olefmsin by FIA D-1319-93               2.538
      64    Benzene in Gasoline by ASTM D 3606      0.8479
      63    Benzene in Gasoline by MSD D5769         0.947
      46    Aromatics by FIA D-1319-93                21.3
     531    Ethanol by MSD (Screen)                  10.29
     551    MTBE by MSD (Screen)                    0.33
     561    ETBE by MSD (Screen)                       0
     571    TAME by MSD (Screen)                       0
      69    Specific Gravity @ 60 Degrees F         0.738829
     692    Degrees API                             60.17
     691    Density @ 60 deg F                    0.738099
     101    D 86    Initial Boiling Point                  88
     110            10 Percent                       114.2
     150            50 Percent                       204.4
     190            90 Percent                      325.69
     200            End Point                        398.1
     201            Residue                             1
     202           Total Recovery                   97.09
     203            Loss                             1.89
     592    Volume Percent Oxygenates by MSD         10.62
     541    Methanol by MSD (Screen)                     0
     591    Weight Percent Oxygen by MSD               3.6
     543    Methanol by OFID                            0
     533    Ethanol by 4815                           8.45
     585    t-Butanol by OFID                            0
     588    DIPE by OFID                               0
     589    Isobutanol by OFID                           0
     5802    n-Butanol by OFID                            0
     593    Volume Percent Oxygenates by OFID          8.97
      59    Weight Percent Oxygen by OFID             3.26
     225    Copper Corrosion D-130-94                   1a
  UNITS
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Parts Per Million
PSIA
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
60/60F
Degrees API
g/cm3 @ 60 deg F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
ml
ml
ml
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Designation

-------
                         NVFEL Fuel Analysis - H2
FTAG: 7769  Village of Elk Grove - control fuel - commercial RFG1 - 5/6/98
     CODE                 TEST                 RESULT
       55   MTBE by OFID                           0.37
      552   MTBE by OFID                          0.067
      562   ETBE by OFID                              0
       56   ETBE by OFID                              0
      534   Ethanol by OFID                         3.259
      532   Ethanol by OFID                          8.75
      572   TAME by OFID                              0
       57   TAME by OFID                              0
      421   Sulfur in Gasoline by ASTM D 2622            246
       62   Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3    11.529
       65   Percent Evaporated at 200 Degrees F         47.6
       66   Percent Evaporated at 300 Degrees F           83
       48   Aromatics in Gasoline MSD D5769         26.285
       49   Olefmsin by FIA  D-1319-93               2.805
       64   Benzene in Gasoline by ASTM D 3606      0.8289
       63   Benzene in Gasoline by MSD D5769         0.91
       46   Aromatics by FIA D-1319-93               22.1
      531   Ethanol by MSD (Screen)                  10.06
      551   MTBE by MSD (Screen)                       0
      561   ETBE by MSD (Screen)                       0
      571   TAME by MSD (Screen)                       0
       69   Specific Gravity @ 60 Degrees F    .     0.74145
      692   Degrees API                             59.34
      691   Density @ 60 deg F                     0.74072
      101   D86    Initial Boiling Point                90.29
      110          10 Percent                         120
      150          50 Percent                       210.8
      190          90 Percent                      333.89
      200          End  Point                      404.89
      201          Residue                           1.3
      202          Total Recovery                    96.9
      203          Loss                             1.8
      541   Methanol by MSD (Screen)                     0
      592   Volume Percent Oxygenates by MSD        10.06
      591   Weight Percent Oxygen by MSD             3.47
      543   Methanol by OFID                           0
      533   Ethanol by 4815                          8.87
      585   t-Butanol by OFID                            0
      588   DIPE by OFID                               0
      589   Isobutanol by OFID                           0
      5802  n-Butanol by OFID                           0
      593   Volume Percent Oxygenates by OFID         9.12
       59   Weight Percent Oxygen by OFID             3.32
      225   Copper Corrosion D-130-94                    1a
  UNITS
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Parts Per Million
PSIA
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
60/60F
Degrees API
g/cm3 @ 60 deg F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
ml
ml
ml
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume.Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Designation

-------
                      NVFEL Fuel Analysis - H3
FTAG: 7770   Village of Elk Grove - test fuel - Phillips RFG2 - 3/17/98
 CODE                  TEST                 RESULT
  552    MTBE bv OFID                              0
  55     MTBE by OFID                              0
  56     ETBEbyOFID                              0
  562    ETBE by OFID                              0
  534    Ethanol by OFID                         3.891
  532    Ethanol by OFID                         10.44
  572    TAME by OFID                              0
  57     TAME by OFID                              0
  421     Sulfur in Gasoline by ASTM D 2622            308
  62     Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3    12.599
  65     Percent Evaporated at 200 Degrees F       52.299
  66     Percent Evaporated at 300 Degrees F         81.4
  48     Aromatics in Gasoline MSD D5769         24.968
  49     Olefinsin by FIA  D-1319-93               7.967
  64     Benzene in Gasoline by ASTM D 3606       0.884
  46     Aromatics by FIA D-1319-93               21.1
  63     Benzene in Gasoline by MSD D5769         0.989
  531     Ethanol by MSD (Screen)                  11.31
  551     MTBE by MSD (Screen)                       0
  561     ETBE by MSD (Screen)                        0
  571     TAME by MSD (Screen)                       0
  69     Specific Gravity @ 60 Degrees F         0.74048
  692     Degrees API                             59.59
  691     Density @ 60 deg F                    0.73975

  101     D86    Initial Boiling Point                85.29
  110            10 Percent                      110.59
  150            50 Percent                         176
  190            90 Percent                      328.89
  200            End Point                         396
  201            Residue                           1.1
  202            Total Recovery                    96.59
  203            Loss                             2.29
  592     Volume Percent Oxygenates by MSD         11.31
  541     Methanol by MSD (Screen)                     0
  591     Weight Percent Oxygen by MSD              3.91
  543     Methanol by OFID                            0
  533     Ethanol by 4815                          10.15
  585     t-Butanol by OFID                            0
  588     DIPE by OFID                               0
  589     Isobutanol by OFID                           0
 5802    n-Butanol by OFID                           0
  593     Volume Percent Oxygenates by OFID        10.44
  59     Weight Percent Oxygen by OFID             3.89
  225     Copper Corrosion D-130-94                   1a
  UNITS
 Oxy Percent
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 Oxy Percent
 Oxy Percent
 Volume Percent
 Oxy Percent
 Volume Percent
 Parts Per Million
 PSIA
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
60/60F
 Degrees API
 g/cm3 @ 60 deg F 60
 degF
 Degrees F
 Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
 Degrees F
ml
ml
ml
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
 Designation

-------
                     NVFEL Fuel Analysis - H4
FTAG: 7771   Village of Elk Grove - test
CODE                  TEST
  55    MTBE by OFID
 552    MTBE by .OFID
  56    ETBE by OFID
 562    ETBE by OFID
 532    Ethanol by OFID
 534    Ethanol by OFID
  57    TAME by OFID
 572    TAME by OFID
 421    Sulfur in Gasoline by ASTM D 2622
  62    Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method
  65    Percent Evaporated at 200 Degrees F
  66    Percent Evaporated at 300 Degrees F
  48    Aromatics  in Gasoline MSD D5769
  49    Olefinsin  by FIA D-1319-93
  64    Benzene in Gasoline by ASTM D 3606
  63    Benzene in Gasoline by MSD  D5769
  46    Aromatics  by FIA D-1319-93
 531    Ethanol by MSD (Screen)
 551    MTBE by MSD (Screen)
 561    ETBE by MSD (Screen)
 571    TAME by MSD (Screen)
 69    Specific Gravity @ 60 Degrees F
 692    Degrees API
 691    Density @ 60  deg F

 101    D86   Initial Boiling Point
 110           10 Percent
 150           50 Percent
 190           90 Percent
 200           End Point
 201           Residue
 202           Total  Recovery
 203           Loss
 592    Volume Percent Oxygenates by MSD
 541    Methanol by MSD (Screen)
 591    Weight Percent Oxygen by MSD
 543    Methanol by OFID
 533    Ethanol by 4815
 585    t-Butanol by OFID
 588    DIPE by OFID
 589    Isobutanol by OFID
5802    n-Butanol by OFID
 593    Volume Percent Oxygenates by OFID
  59    Weight Percent Oxygen by OFID
 225    Copper Corrosion D-130-94
fuel - Phillips RFG2 - 5/6/98
    RESULT   UNITS
          0 Volume Percent
          0 Oxy Percent
          0 Volume Percent
          0 Oxy Percent
      10.14 Volume Percent
      3.776 Oxy Percent
          0 Volume Percent
          0 Oxy Percent
        307 Parts Per Million
3    12.589 PSIA
     52.799 Volume Percent
         82 Volume Percent
     26.158 Volume Percent
      9.316 Volume Percent
      0.889 Volume Percent
      0.996 Volume Percent
       21.8 Volume Percent
      10.59 Volume Percent
          0 Volume Percent
          0 Volume Percent
          0 Volume Percent
    0.74146 60/60F
      59.33
    0.74073

         89
        111
      175.3
      330.5
      392.6
        1.1
       97.4
        1.5
      10.59
          0
       3.66
          0
      10.09
          0
          0
          0
          0
      10.14
       3.77
         1a
Degrees API
g/cm3 @ 60 deg F
deg F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
ml
ml
ml
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Designation

-------
                     NVFEL Fuel Analysis - H5
 FTAG: 7772   Village of Elk Grove - fuel from vehicle 238 - 5/6/98
CODE                  TEST                RESULT
 55     MTBE by OFID                              0
 552    MTBE by OFID                              0
 56     ETBE by OFID                              0
 562    ETBE by OFID                              0
 532    Ethanol by OFID                          10.14
 534    Ethanol by OFID                          3.768
 57     TAME by OFID                              0
 572    TAME by OFID                              0
 421     Sulfur in Gasoline by ASTM D 2622            312
 62     Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3      12.3
 65     Percent Evaporated at 200 Degrees F       51.899
 66     Percent Evaporated at 300 Degrees F         81.2
 48     Aromatics in Gasoline MSD D5769         25.669
 49     Olefinsin by FIA  D-1319-93                9.478
 64     Benzene in Gasoline by ASTM D 3606        0.896
 46     Aromatics by FIA D-1319-93               22.3
 63     Benzene in Gasoline by MSD D5769          1.008
 531     Ethanol by MSD (Screen)                   10.92
 551     MTBE by MSD (Screen)                       0
 561     ETBE by MSD (Screen)                        0
 571     TAME by MSD (Screen)                       0
 69     Specific Gravity @ 60 Degrees F          0.74299
 692     Degrees API                             58.94
 691     Density @ 60 deg F                     0.74226
 101     D 86    Initial Boiling Point                89.79
 110            10 Percent                      114.09
 150           50 Percent                       181.8
 190           90 Percent                       331.3
 200           End Point                      398.69
 201            Residue                          0.69
 202           Total Recovery                    97.2
 203           Loss                              2.1
 541     Methanol by MSD (Screen)                     0
 592     Volume Percent Oxygenates by MSD          10.92
 591     Weight Percent Oxygen  by MSD              3.79
 543     Methanol by OFID                            0
 533     Ethanol by 4815                          10.15
 585     t-Butanol by OFID                            0
 588     DIPE  by OFID                               0
 589    Isobutanol by OFID                           0
5802    n-Butanol by OFID                           0
 593    Volume Percent Oxygenates by OFID         10.14
 59     Weight Percent Oxygen by OFID             3.76
 225    Copper Corrosion D-130-94                   1a
  UNITS
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Parts Per Million
PSIA
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
60/60F
Degrees API
g/cm3 @ 60 deg F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
ml
ml
ml
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Designation

-------
                     NVFEL Fuel Analysis - H6
     FTAG: 7661   Phillips fuel sample D-628 - RFG2 - 6/29/98
CODE                  TEST                RESULT
  55     MTBEbyOFID                            10.6
 552    MTBEbyOFID                           1.946
 562    ETBE by OFID                              0
  56     ETBE by OFID                              0
 534    Ethanol by OFID                             0
 532    Ethanol by OFID                             0
  57     TAME by OFID                            2.94
 572    TAME by OFID                           0.485
 421     Sulfur in Gasoline by ASTM D 2622             90
  62     Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3      9.919
  65     Percent Evaporated at 200 Degrees F       54.899
  66     Percent Evaporated at 300 Degrees F       88.599
  48     Aromatics in Gasoline MSD D5769         25.574
  49     Olefinsin by FIA  D-1319-93              13.004
  64     Benzene in Gasoline by ASTM D 3606        0.915
  46     Aromatics by FIA D-1319-93               19.19
  63     Benzene in Gasoline by MSD D5769         1.018
 531     Ethanol by MSD (Screen)                      0
 551     MTBE by MSD (Screen)                    13.13
 561     ETBE by MSD (Screen)                        0
 571     TAME by MSD (Screen)                    3.58
  69     Specific Gravity @ 60 Degrees F         0.73804
 692     Degrees API                            60.22
 691     Density @ 60 deg F                    0.73732
101     D86    Initial Boiling Point                  101
 110            10 Percent                        137.3
 150            50 Percent                        190.4
 190            90 Percent                        303.3
 200            End Point                        368.3
 201            Residue                             1
 202            Total Recovery                   98.09
 203            Loss                             0.9
 541     Methanol by MSD (Screen)                     0
 592     Volume Percent Oxygenates by MSD         16.71
 591     Weight Percent Oxygen  by MSD             2.79
 543     Methanol by OFID                            0
 585     t-Butanol by OFID                         0.04
 587     sec-Butanol by OFID                          0
 588     DIPE by OFID                               0
 589    Isobutanol by OFID                        0.01
 5802    n-Butanol by OFID                        0.04
 593    Volume Percent Oxygenates by OFID         13.59
  59     Weight Percent Oxygen by OFID              2.44
  32     Weight Fraction Carbon ASTM D 3343-95   0.8598
  73     Net Heat of Combustion ASTM D 3338-92    18605
  UNITS
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Parts Per Million
PSIA
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
60/60F
Degrees API
g/cm3 @ 60 deg F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
ml
ml
ml
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percant
Weight Percent
Weight Fraction
BTU per Pound

-------
                     NVFEL Fuel Analysis - H7
     FTAG: 7662   Phillips fuel sample D-517 - RFG2 - 6/29/98
CODE                  TEST                RESULT
 55     MTBEbyOFID                           11.34
 552    MTBE by OFID                           2.068
 56     ETBE by OFID                              0
 562    ETBE by OFID                              0
 532    Ethanol by OFID                             0
 534    Ethanol by OFID                             0
 572    TAME by OFID                              0
 57     TAME by OFID                              0
 421     Sulfur in Gasoline by ASTM D 2622            121
 62     Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3      6.66
 65     Percent Evaporated at 200 Degrees F       46.899
 66     Percent Evaporated at 300 Degrees F         87.4
 48     Aromatics in Gasoline MSD D5769         28.285
 49     Oletlnsin by FIA  D-1319-93              11.335
 64     Benzene in  Gasoline by ASTM D 3606      1.0689
 46     Aromatics by FIA D-1319-93               21.3
 63     Benzene in  Gasoline by MSD D5769        1.181
 531     Ethanol  by MSD (Screen)                      0
 551     MTBE by MSD (Screen)                   13.45
 561     ETBE by MSD (Screen)                       0
 571     TAME by MSD (Screen)                       0
 69     Specific Gravity @ 60 Degrees F         0.742779
 692     Degrees API                               59
 691     Density @ 60 deg F                    0.742049
 101     D 86    Initial Boiling Point               100.29
 110            10  Percent                      140.59
 150            50  Percent                       206.3
 190            90  Percent                      311.19
 200            End Point                      372.39
 201            Residue                          0.69
 202            Total Recovery                   98.09
 203            Loss                             1.19
 541     Methanol by MSD (Screen)                     0
 592     Volume Percent Oxygenates by MSD         13.45
 591     Weight Percent Oxygen by MSD              2.24
 543     Methanol by OFID                            0
 585     t-Butanol by OFID                         0.05
 587     sec-Butanol by OFID                         0
 588     DIPE  by OFID                               0
 589     Isobutanol by OFID                        0.01
5802    n-Butanol by OFID                        0.05
 593     Volume Percent Oxygenates by OFID        11.39
 59     Weight Percent Oxygen by OFID             2.08
 32     Weight Fraction Carbon ASTM D 3343-95    0.8613
 73     Net Heat of  Combustion ASTM D 3338-92     18570
  UNITS
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Parts Per Million
PSIA
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
60/60F
Degrees API
g/cm3 @ 60 deg F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
ml
ml
ml
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Weight Fraction
BTU per Pound

-------
                     NVFEL Fuel Analysis - H8
    FTAG: 7870   Houston test fuel - sample A - RFG2 - 9/4/98
CODE                  TEST                 RESULT
 552    MTBE by OFID                          2.045
 55     MTBE by OFID                          11.22
 562    ETBE by OFID                              0
 56     ETBE by OFID                              0
 534    Ethanol by OFID                             0
 532    Ethanol by OFID                             0
 572    TAME by OFID                              0
 57     TAME by OFID                              0
 421     Sulfur in Gasoline by ASTM D 2622            133
 62     Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3     7.059
 62     Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3      7.03
 65     Percent Evaporated at 200 Degrees F         46.2
 66     Percent Evaporated at 300 Degrees F         86.7
 48     Aromatics in Gasoline MSD D5769         24.283
 49     Olefinsin by FIA  D-1319-93              12.042
 64     Benzene in Gasoline by ASTM D 3606      0.9939
 46     Aromatics by FIA D-1319-93              21.89
 63     Benzene in Gasoline by MSD D5769        1.125
 531     Ethanol by MSD (Screen)                      0
 551     MTBE by MSD (Screen)                    7.75
 561     ETBE by MSD (Screen)                        0
 571     TAME by MSD (Screen)                       0
 69     Specific Gravity @ 60 Degrees F         0.74319
 692     Degrees API                             58.89
 691     Density @ 60 deg F                    0.74246

 101     D86    Initial Boiling Point                104.7
 110            10 Percent                       143.4
 150            50 Percent                      207.69
 190            90 Percent                      311.19
 200            End  Point                       382.5
 201            Residue                           1.1
 202            Total Recovery                      98
 203           Loss                             0.9
 592    Volume Percent Oxygenates by MSD         7.75
 541     Methanol by MSD (Screen)                     0
 591     Weight Percent Oxygen by MSD              1.4
 543    Methanol by OFID                        0.07
 585    t-Butanol by OFID                        0.05
 588    DIPE by OFID                               0
 589    Isobutanol by OFID                        0.01
 5802    n-Butanol by OFID                        0.05
 593    Volume Percent Oxygenates by OFID        11.35
 59     Weight Percent Oxygen by OFID             2.09
 227    Gum Content Washed                      0.2
 228    Gum Content Unwashed                    17.6
 229    Peroxides                                  0
  UNITS
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Parts Per Million
PSIA
PSIA
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
60/60F
Degrees API
g/cm3 @ 60 deg F
degF
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
ml
ml
ml
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
mg/100ml
mg/100ml
Weight Percent

-------
                        NVFEL Fuel Analysis - H9
FTAG: 7871   Houston control fuel - sample B - commercial RFG1 - 9/4/98
   CODE                  TEST                 RESULT
    552    MTBE by OFID                           1.626
     55    MTBE by OFID                            8.94
     56    ETBE by OFID                              0
    562    ETBE by OFID                              0
    534    Ethanol by OFID                             0
    532    Ethanol by OFID                             0
    572    TAME by OFID                           0.082
     57    TAME by OFID                            0.5
    421    Sulfur in Gasoline by ASTM D 2622           165
     62    Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3       7.12
     62    Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3       7.11
     65    Percent Evaporated at 200 Degrees F       51.899
     66    Percent Evaporated at 300 Degrees F       80.599
     48    Aromatics in Gasoline MSD D5769         24.271
     49    Olefinsin by FIA  D-1319-93              18.604
     64    Benzene in Gasoline by ASTM D 3606      0.4829
     46    Aromatics  by FIA D-1319-93              23.69
     63    Benzene in Gasoline by MSD D5769          0.52
    531    Ethanol by MSD (Screen)                      0
    551    MTBE by MSD (Screen)                     6.85
    561    ETBE by MSD (Screen)                        0
    571    TAME by MSD (Screen)        .             0.5
     69    Specific Gravity @ 60 Degrees F        0.744839
    692    Degrees API                            58.47
    691    Density @ 60 deg F                    0.744099

    101    D86    Initial Boiling Point                103.4
    110           10 Percent                      137.69
    150           50 Percent                      195.69
    190           90 Percent                      344.39
    200           End Point                       420.1
    201           Residue                           0.8
    202           Total Recovery                   98.09
    203           Loss                              1.1
    592    Volume Percent Oxygenates by MSD          7.62
    541    Methanol by MSD (Screen)                     0
    591    Weight Percent Oxygen  by MSD             '  1.4
    543    Methanol by OFID                          0.06
    585    t-Butanol by OFID                          0.05
    588    DIPE by OFID                               0
    589    Isobutanol by OFID                         0.01
   5802    n-Butanol by OFID                         0.05
    593    Volume Percent Oxygenates by OFID          9.57
     59    Weight Percent Oxygen  by OFID              1.75
    227    Gum Content Washed                       0.59
    228    Gum Content Unwashed                     10
    229    Peroxides                                   0
  UNITS
 Oxy Percent
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 Oxy Percent
 Oxy Percent
 Volume Percent
 Oxy Percent
 Volume Percent
 Parts Per Million
 PSIA
 PSIA
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 60/60F
 Degrees API
 g/cm3 @ 60 deg F
 deg F
 Degrees F
 Degrees F
 Degrees F
 Degrees F
 Degrees F
 ml
 ml
 ml
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 Weight Percent
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 Volume Percent
 Weight Percent
 mg/100ml
 mg/100ml
Weight Percent

-------
                       NVFEL Fuel Analysis-H10
FTAG: 7872   Houston control fuel - sample C - commercial RFG1 - 9/4/98
   CODE                  TEST                RESULT
     55    MTBE by OFID                           8.96
    552    MTBE by OFID                          1.631
     56    ETBE by OFID                              0
    562    ETBE by OFID                              0
    534    Ethanol by OFID                             0
    532    Ethanol by OFID                             0
    572    TAME by OFID                          0.079
     57    TAME by OFID                           0.48
    421    Sulfur in Gasoline by ASTM D 2622            105
     62    Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3      7.08
     62    Vapor Pressure by Appendix E Method 3      7.08
     65    Percent Evaporated at 200 Degrees F       52.399
     66    Percent Evaporated at 300 Degrees F       81.599
     48    Aromatics in Gasoline MSD D5769         25.009
    49    Olefinsin by FIA  D-1319-93              17.828
    64    Benzene in Gasoline by ASTM D 3606      0.4769
    63    Benzene in Gasoline by MSD D5769        0.519
    46    Aromatics by FIA D-1319-93               23.1
    531    Ethanol by MSD (Screen)                      0
    551    MTBE by MSD (Screen)                    6.86
    561    ETBE by MSD (Screen)                        0
    571    TAME by MSD (Screen)                    0.53
    69    Specific Gravity @ 60 Degrees F          0.7449
    692    Degrees API                             58.45
    691    Density @ 60 deg F                   0.744169
    101    D86    Initial Boiling Point               104.09
    110           10 Percent                      135.69
    150           50 Percent                       194.5
    190           90 Percent                      343.89
    200           End  Point                       415.5
    201           Residue                           0.8
    202           Total Recovery                    97.7
    203           Loss                             1.5
    592    Volume Percent Oxygenates by MSD         7.67
    541    Methanol by MSD (Screen)                     0
    591    Weight Percent Oxygen by MSD              1.4
    543    Methanol by OFID                         0.06
    585    t-Butanol by OFID                         0.05
    586    n-Propanol by OFID                          0
    588    DIPE by OFID                               0
    589    Isobutanol by OFID                        0.01
    5802    n-Butanol by OFID                        0.05
    593    Volume Percent Oxygenates by OFID         9.57
     59    Weight Percent Oxygen by OFID             1.75
    226    Acidity as Acetic Acid                     0.001
  UNITS
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Oxy Percent
Volume Percent
Parts Per Million
PSIA
PSIA
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
60/60F
Degrees API
g/cm3 @ 60 deg F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
Degrees F
ml
ml
ml
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Volume Percent
Weight Percent
Weight Percent

-------
Appendix I

-------
                                 Temperatures at Boston/Logan airport:  March - August 1998
 Date   Min    Max
Date   Min    Max
Date    Min    Max
                                                                         Date   Min   Max
                        Date   Min   Max
                                                                                                                         Date   Min    Max
March
  10     38    61
  11     21    35
  12     17    27
  13     10    36
  14     28    39
  15     29    40
  16     27    37
  17     27    37
  18     32    41
  19     32    41
  20     35    37
  21     30    36
  22     28    34
  23     30    41
  24     34    46
  25     30    46
  26     36    59
  27     46    79
  28     55    85
  29     55    85
  30     46    79
  31     64    88
April
 1     39    71
 2     39    45
 3     41    55
 4     37    49
 5     36    45
 6     39    54
 7     43    64
 8     41    59
 9     40    53
 10    34    54
 11     34    54
 12    37    50
 13    41    57
 14    40    59
 15    41    56
 16    44    59
 17    48    61
 18    45    64
 19    44    65
 20    45    54
 21     43    64
 22    41    65
 23    45    63
 24    43    57
 25    43    59
 26    39    53
 27    39    52
 28    39    61
 29    46    72
 30    57    79
May
 1     54    72
 2     50    66
 3     48    58
 4     45    54
 5     51    63
 6     51    59
 7     52    59
 8     52    57
 9     50    55
 10     48    55
 11     46    54
 12     46    53
 13     43    49
 14     41    52
 15     46    66
 16     46    68
 17     50    66
 18     54    82
 19     54    83
 20     54    77
 21     59    81
 22     50    70
 23     54    75
 24     57    81
 25     55    77
 26     55    80
 27     55    79
 28     59    85
 29     66    90
 30     64    86
 31     57    80
June
 1     57    79
 2     53    73
 3     52    74
 4     48    65
 5     52    72
 6     52    71
 7     55    69
 8     53    65
 9     52    72
 10    57    79
 11     54    75
 12    54    65
 13    57    64
 14    55    72
 15    61    80
 16    55    64
 17    55    64
 18    59    72
 19    59    70
 20    59    70
 21     59    68
 22    57    70
 23    62    73
 24    68    82
 25    70    88
 26    70    88
 27    64    83
 28    57    66
 29    60    75
 30    60    76
July
 1     63     77
 2     61     82
 3     60     82
 4     66     80
 5     64     74
 6     63     76
 7     63     76
 8     64     72
 9     62     75
 10    66     81
 11    63     77-
 12    62     77
 13    63     86
 14    70     90
 15    70     91
 15    70     91
 16    70     91
 17    73     90
 18    72     88
 19    63     81
 20    70     84
 21    72     90
 22    73     93
 23    71     93
 24    71     92
 25     63     81
 26     63     81
 27     64     82
 28     64     85
 29     73     88
 30     68    82
August
  1     63     75
  2     62     82
  3     66     84
  4     65     85
  5     64     79
  6     64     81
  7     66     78
  8     66     82
  9     68     88
  10     68     88
  11     69     88
  12     61     73
  13     59     71
  14     63     82
  15     62     84
  16     77     84
  17     64     78
  18     64     86
  19     59     73
  20     57     72
  21     64     75
  22     63.    79
  23     64     81
  24     70     91
  25     69     92
  26     70     82
  27     71     82
  28    64     77
  29    64     78
  30    64     84
  31     65     85
Note: All temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit

-------
                            Temperatures at Chicago/O'Hare airport: March - August 1998
 Date
Min
      Max
Date  Min
                                  Max
                                     Date  Min
                                Max
Date   Min
                                                                            Max
                                                                                      Date  Min
                                                                                          Max
Date  Min   Max
March
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31










13
13
10
19
22
22
24
33
38
34
33
31
26
31
28
42
60
56
49
44
66
45










23
22
26
38
33
32
36
39
52
39
36
43
46
45
52
59
75
77
65
79
79
72









April
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30


38
38
37
32
29
33
44
43
41
35
34
55
55
48
44
36
34
39
41
39
47
43
40
49
43
41
37
34
46
50


49
50
45
49
52
62
60
52
45
57
66
73
68
68
61
48
55
60
62
65
53
63
72
75
68
54
52
57
62
59

May
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

52
51
49
48
54
58
55
52
50
48
49
47
56
52
64
62
50
62
66
54
51
53
54
54
51
47
50
60
64
58
57

65
63
56
72
69
77
59
71
65
68
72
79
79
84
86
82
86
90
91
75
77
60
68
67
72
78
83
90
83
87
82
June
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30


51
47
48
47
42
43
45
43
58
60
60
64 '
60
58
61
60
62
64
64
64
69
61
61
' 71
70
70
69
68
67
64


74
78
61
65
58
64
70
69
64
75
76
84
78
76
78
80
84
89
82
91
88
86
87
94
95
87
95
88
86
83

July
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

59
60
69
63
62
68
67
66
64
64
60
57
60
66
70
72
66
66
70
67
76
70
65
62
57
56
64
63
63
65
62

80
86
88
75
78
87
77
81
85
81
81
84
86
90
88
88
84
88
91
91
94
81
81
82
82
83
83
89
86
79
79
August
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

59
63
72
68
71
72
72
70
70
72
64
64
64
61
66
77
66
70
61
61
72
72
70
66
70
64
64
64
66
64
57

84
84
84
80
81
82
78
81
84
88
79
77
81
82
79
82
82
80
79
86
88
84
90
87
84
84
81
77
84
81
81
(Note: All temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit)

-------
           Temperatures at Houston Hobby airport: June - September 1998
 Date   Min    Max         Date   Min    Max          Date    Min   Max           Date     Min    Max

 June                     July                      August                     September
   1     75    99           1     79    97            1      76    101             1       73    92
   2     74    97           2     77    94            2      77    100             2       75    94
   3     81    93           3     77    86            3      81    100             3       79    97
   4     81    95           4     79    93            4      75    99             4       75    93
   5     82    94           5     77    95            5      80    99             5       73    93
   6     71    87           6     75    97            6      77    95             6       75    88
   7     72    88           7     75    96            7      73    86             7       73    89
   8     79    92           8     77    95            8      78    96             8       75    88
   9     79    93           9     79    97            9      77    99             9       75    90
  10     81    95           10     78    99           10     76    98            10       73    81
  11     81    95           11     77    99           11      77    98            11       75    86
  12     81    97           12     78    99           12     77    97            12       75    82
  13     78    100           13     79    97           13     78    99            13       75    87
  14     79    100           14     73    99           14     75    86            14       78    90
  15     79    100           15     75    99           15     75    90            15       77    82
  16     78    98           16     77    100           16     85    90
  17     81    93           17     79    102           17     75    93
  18     82    95           18     71    96           18     78    89
  19     80    97           19     77    95           19     75    94
  20     79    97           20     77    95           20     77    94
  21     76    99           21     76    94           21      73    86
  22     75    96           22     78    95           22     77    82                 '
  23     77    97           23     77    97           23     77    88
  24     77    97           24     77    97           24     77    91
  25     77    96           25     78    96           25     78    93
  26     79    91           26     76    97           26     78    94
  27     79    95           27     80    98           27     76    96
  28     73    86           28     77    95           28     78    97
  29     75    93           29     77    98           29     78    99
  30     79    93           30     77    97           30     79    90
                           31     75    100           31      75    91

(Note: All temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit)

-------
Appendix J

-------
 NOU 02 '98 12=32 FR FUEL ECONOMriGUftLl T r 31- 3SU 03dl *C S2U2565IC&4
                                                   Fuel Economy and Quality
                                              Vehicle Environmental Engineering
                                                     Tel (313) 594 3179
                                                     Fax (313) 390 0382

                                                       November 2,1998
To   Debbie  Wood -U.S EPA

cc   Larry Haslett -U.S EPA
     Jim  Steiger - AAMA
Subject Boston Police Ford Bronco  Fuel  Pump Failure
Debbie, the Visteon fuel handling  department which design and
test fuel pumps  for Ford have analyzed the returned pump  which
had operated  on  Federal Phase 2 gasoline.  As the attached test
sheet indicates  the pump performance is still within our
specification and suitable for use.

Further examination of the pump showed that the fitting which
screws into the  pump outlet tube was damaged and is a  likely
source of the leak experienced. This in our opinion is a
mechanical failure not attributable  to the quality of  the fuel
be:Lng used. In summary, Federal Phase 2 gasoline played no part
in this failure.
Regards Gary P Smith

-------
                              Flet Return  88MY Bronco/ Botch Fuel pump

                                           Part* E7TF-9350-AA

                                             (12 Volt aweep)
       6000 T	
       4500
                                                             3 85 Amps 9

                                                            /43.3P8I
                                                  Pump PctMur (P81)
               iU
               ,1
                                                                                                                            10
                                                                                                                            OJ
                                                                                                                            CSJ
                                                                                                                            Ul
                                                                                                                            ro
                                                                                                                            u
                                                                                                                            0>
                                                                                                                            tl>
                                                                                                                            CD
                                                                                                                            ra
                                                                                                                             j
                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                             01
                                                                                                                             in
                                                                                                                             ro
                                                                                                                             m
                   o
                   ro



                   m

                   h-
                   ro
                   m
                   o
                   o

                   -c
                   CO
                   (D
                                                                                                                                -<

                                                                                                                                L-J
                                                                                                                                OD
                                                                                                                                ro
                                                                                                                                
-------
                             Fleet Return - 8.  .Y Bronco/Bosch Fuel pump
                                        Part* E7TF-9350-AA

                                          (13.2 Volt sweep)
                                                    r>
     5000
     4600
                                               Pump PrMur (PSI)
                                                    flow
 Amp     ]
Jim Mailed
AVT/PCSD Fuel Delivery
                                     11:51 AM
                                                                                                                         o.
                                                                                                                         m
                                                                                                                         IX)
                                                                                                                         ni

                                                                                                                         (V
                                                        a>

                                                        
                                                        [VJ


                                                        CO
                                                        II

                                                        m


                                                        m

                                                        o

                                                        o
                                                                                                                             t*
                                                                                                                             O


                                                                                                                             r
                                                                                                                             G,
                                                                                                                             L.I
                                                                                                                             a.
                                                        T'

                                                        Ul


                                                        i>j



                                                        VI

                                                        CT'
T

C'


e

-------
Appendix K

-------
                                                                     General Motors
                                                                     Public Policy Center
                                                                      September 3, 1998
                                                                               FE-6235
       Ms. Deborah K. Wood
       Assistant Director, Fuels and Energy Division
       Office of Mobile Sources
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
       401 K Street, S.W.
       Washington, DC 20460

       Dear Ms. Wood:

             Re:    Fuel Pump Failures During Federal Phase IIRFG Testing in
                    Village of Elk Grove, IL, Fleet Vehicles

       At the request of your office, General Motors fuel systems personnel examined three fuel
       pumps that failed during the Federal Phase II RFG test program. The three fuel pumps
       were from General Motors vehicles operated by the Village of Elk Grove, EL, and were
       shipped to us from that test fleet.

      Two of the pumps were General Motors Delphi rollervane pumps.  We were informed
       that these two pumps were from Chevrolet Caprice police vehicles, a 1995 model with
       85,000 miles and a 1996 model with 56,000 miles at the time of failure.  It is not known
       if these  pumps were the original production pumps supplied  when  the  vehicle was
       assembled, but these mileages would indicate that they probably are.

       Both rollervane pumps failed because  of severe corrosion of the positive brush shunt
       wire. In both pumps the wire had corroded away entirely leaving the brush spring to carry
       the pump current, causing the spring to fail eventually because of overheating.  The first
       pump  received, from  the 1995  vehicle, also displayed severe wear of  the copper
       commutator. The commutator on the other pump was also worn abnormally but not as
       severely.

       The severe  positive shunt wire corrosion in  the  two  pumps  is typical of previously
       observed field results during longer-term exposure to gasoline containing reactive sulfur
       compounds  (most often a sulfide, but not exclusively). These compounds corrode copper
       and, if present, would not allow the gasoline in question to meet ASTM standards for
       copper strip corrosion. The  black deposits on the commutators of both pumps also can
       be  attributed to copper corrosion by reactive sulfur compounds but this was not verified
       by analysis.  The commutator wear was probably  also caused by copper corrosion; high
       levels of peroxides in fuel also can cause the same type of commutator wear, but do not
       usually cause shunt wire failure. Our conclusion is that a high level of corrosion probably

General Motors Corporation                            General Motors Building  3044 West Grand Boulevard   Detroit, Michigan 4820:
                                                 Mail Code 482-112-2)7    Facsimile H (313) 556-9002    Phone # (313) 556-772:

-------
                                                                      General Motors
                                                                      Public Policy Center
       was present in both of these rollervane pumps at the start of the Phase n RFG testing, and
       the failures are coincidental to the use of reformulated gasoline.

       The third pump was a large capacity diaphragm pump used on carbureted fuel systems,
       which was removed from a 1981 Chevrolet Step Van at 66,000 miles.  The diaphragm
       pump has the markings  E  L5 and 40987 but is of unknown manufacture, and is not the
       original equipment component, in our estimation.  This pump showed no obvious signs
       of failure except for an oil  leak and possibly  an extruded seal.  The oil leak was not
       caused as a result of fuel composition. The extruded seal could be the  result of excessive
       swell; which may be caused  by the presence of oxygenates or by excessively high
       aromatic content or  a combination.  The apparent  extrusion could also be due to an
       assembly problem.  If the seal  in question were not sealing properly, it would cause
       internal fuel leakage and siphoning of the fuel back to the fuel tank.  In the most extreme
       case, the pump would have either reduced or no delivery capacity.  If the seal extruded
       because of excessive swell, this could have occurred  in the short duration of the Phase n
       RFG testing.  However, it seems more likely that the failures of both the rollervane and
       the diaphragm pumps was coincidental to the Phase n RFG use and not related to the use
       of Phase H RFG.

       If I can provide further information, please don't hesitate to call me at (313) 556-7723.
       Sincerely,
       Gerald J. Barnes, Manager
       Clean Fuels Activities
General Motors Corporation                            General Motors Building  3044 West Grand Boulevard  Detroit, Michigan 482
                                                 Mail Code 482-112-2)7   Facsimile * (313) H6-9002    Phone ft (313) V6-7\

-------
                                                                      General Motors
                                                                      Public Policy Center
                                                                     September 23, 1998
                                                                               FE-6239
       Ms. Deborah K. Wood
       Assistant Director, Fuels and Energy Division
       Office of Mobile Sources
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
       401 K Street, S.W.
       Washington, DC 20460

       Dear Ms. Wood:

             Re:    Fuel Pump Failures During Federal Phase II RFG Testing in
                    Houston, TX Fleet Vehicles

       General Motors fuel systems personnel examined four fuel pumps that failed during the
       EPA Federal Phase H RFG test program in Houston, TX.  All four fuel pumps were of in-
       tank twin turbine design from 1993 Chevrolet S10 pickups; these vehicles operated on
       both Phase n RFG test fuel and on the control fuel in the Houston test program, as shown
       below.

                           Vehicle #            Mileage             Fuel

                             1047              82,553             . Phase 0 RFG
                             1051              72,771         '    Control
                             1113              81,998              Control
                             1249              86,589    /         Control

       Upon receipt, all pumps were checked for free rotation and electrical conductivity before
       disassembly. No indication of binding was seen in any of the  four pumps.  However,
       resistance across the power leads was high for all four samples. This is consistent with
       the high wear observed on the pump  motor commutator upon disassembly.  The brushes
       showed normal wear, however.  In addition, the  aluminum  housing of the pump was
       covered with fuel gum deposits, imparting a gold color to the pump housing.

       The heavy commutator wear coupled  with normal brush wear suggest that all four pumps
       failed  due to  operation on  peroxidized (sour) fuel.  The gum deposits on the pump
       housing are also consistent with this conclusion. This type of failure usually occurs quite
       quickly, depending on the level the peroxides reach in the fuel in use. Since the failures
       occurred in both the Phase n RFG and the control fuels, they  seem more likely related
       either to the fuel dispensing system or to vehicle operating factors leading to oxidation of
       the fuel, rather than to the base composition of either fuel.

General Motors Corporation                            General Motors Building   3044 West Grand Boulevard  Detroit, Michigan 482
                                                Mail Code 482-112-257   Facsimile # (313) 556-9002    Phone It (313) 556-7/

-------
                                                                        General Motors
                                                                        Public Policy Center

       Peroxidized fuel can result from a number of factors, including poor oxidation stability of
       the base fuel, long fuel storage time, high storage temperatures, contact with air (such as
       in a partially  filled vehicle or storage fuel tank),  or a  combination of these factors.
       Peroxides form by a free radical chain reaction and tend to increase in concentration once
       present in fuel storage tanks if the right reaction conditions continue to exist.  This could
       lead  to  a "carry-over"  effect  in fuel  storage  systems,  if the conditions for peroxide
       formation continue to exist, even with uncontaminated batches of new fuel. Contact with
       copper catalyzes the oxidation reaction, and the peroxides produced are very corrosive to
       copper such as the pump commutator in the failed pumps.

       As we discussed with Mr. Haslett, we would suggest that the fleet operator check the
       current batches of Phase JQ RFG and control fuels for peroxide, washed gum and acid
       levels. Levels of peroxides (above  50 ppm by ASTM D 3703) would  be of concern, as
       would washed gum levels above 10 mg/100 ml (ASTM D 381).  High acid levels (above
       about 10 ppm by ASTM D1613) indicate the fuel has probably oxidized even  if peroxide
       levels are relatively low.   If high  peroxide levels are found in the fuels used in the
       Houston fleet,  it probably is advisable to dispose of the fuel and take steps to reduce the
       factors that lead to fuel oxidation.  The operator may want to consider use of an oxidation
       inhibitor such as Sta-bil, particularly during the higher temperature summer months.

       If I can provide further information, please don'f hesitate to call me at (313) 556-7723.


       Sincerely,
       Gerald J. Barnes, Nfafiager
       Clean Fuels Activities
       c: Lawrence Haslett, EPA
General Motors Corporation                             General Motors Building  3044 West Grand Boulevard  Detroit, Michigan 48202.
                                                  Mail Code 482-112-2)7   Facsimile #(313) 556-9002    Phone # (313) 556-77U
                                                                      }

-------
Appendix L

-------
                                                        February 22,1999
 Deborah K. Wood, Acting Director
 Fuels and Energy Division
 USEPA (6406)
 Washington, DC 20460
 Fx: 202-565-2084

 Ms. Wood,

       During our testing of phase n reformulated gasoline, we experienced four
 (4) fuel pump  failures.   Because the test period covered five to six months, I
 don't consider this number of failures to be out of the ordinary for a fleet of our
 size.  While I do not have detailed records on the historical rate of fuel pump
 replacements In  the Elk Grove Village fleet, it is my opinion,  based on  my
 experience, that the number of failures we expected during this program was
 normal.    It  is  customary  to replace  fuel pumps  on  vehicles  that  have
 accumulated more than 60,000 miles.  While this is not a planned event in the
 life of any vehicle, experience has shown that it can be expected.  Generally, we
 are not concerned about fuel pump failures that occur after 60,000 miles.

 As I  have  stated previously, the testing of the  phase II RFC  was  basically
 transparent to our users. Even  the mechanical staff saw no change or affect.

 I hope these comments will assist you in your endeavor to conclude your report
 on the testing  program.  Should you require any further information, data or
 comments please do not hesitate to call me.

 It has truly been a  pleasure working with you and the  rest of the EPA staff.
 Thanks again for the opportunity to assist the EPA In this program. If there is an
 opportunity to particlpate'iri any other future testing please keep us In mind.
Respectfully,
Jack Gray
Superintendent of Building &
Village of Elk Grove Village
1635 Biesterfield Road
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007
847-734-8080
               896823E/J78 'ON  m       3AOiKm3  - AWO m      Ifr:21 NOW 66-22-83J

-------
Appendix M

-------
       SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
       Post Office Drawer 28510, 6220 Culebra Road
              San Antonio, Texas 78238

AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS AND EMISSIONS RESEARCH DIVISION
    ON-ROAD STUDY OF THE EFFECTS
 OF PHASE II REFORMULATED GASOLINE
           ON FUEL ECONOMY
                  Prepared by

                 Randell Hone

                FINAL REPORT
          SwRI Project No. 08-7601-025

                  Prepared for

          Environmental Protection Agency
                  July 1998
                            Approved:
                            Kevin Brunner
                            Manager
                            Fuel Technology & Product
                            Development Section

-------
                    TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.    INTRODUCTION	2

II.    BACKGROUND	2

III.   TEST PROCEDURES	3

     A. Vehicle Selection	3
     B. Vehicle Preparation	3
     C. Fuel	4
     D. Test Routes and Mileage Accumulation	4

IV.   RESULTS	6

V.    CONCLUSIONS	7

-------
                             EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) conducted an on-road study of the fuel economy
 effects of Phase  II  reformulated  gasoline  (Phase  II RFG)  compared  to  Phase  I
 reformulated gasoline (Phase I RFG).  Fuel economy was  measured for a group  of
 vehicles of various makes, ages, mileage, and fuel delivery systems.  Twelve vehicles
 were driven over fixed 50-mile urban and suburban routes. Fuel usage was determined by
 measuring the total volume of fuel consumed during the 50-mile route using a flow meter
 to precisely measure volume and temperature. The results in this study do not indicate
 any statistically significant fuel economy difference between the fuels.

 The outcome of this study is consistent with other fuel economy studies.  Fuel economy is
 generally  proportional to the energy content of the fuel1.  During the past  few years,
 studies  of the fuel  economy  effects of reformulated, gasolines with oxygenates123,
 including  laboratory and on-road studies, have shown that the addition of two percent
 oxygen by weight to gasoline results in a one to three percent fuel economy loss3.  In this
 study,  both gasolines have essentially the same oxygen content  and the same energy
 content. Since the energy content difference between Phase I RFG and Phase II RFG is
 expected to be minimal, no impact on the  fuel economy measured in this study  was
 expected.

This  study was designed to minimize the effects of the fuel economy variables that are
normally present in every day driving. The key variables include differences in personal
driving habits, weather (temperature, wind effects, and precipitation), traffic patterns (e.g.
rush  hour versus weekend, and highway versus  city driving), number of passengers,
vehicle condition, and changes in tire pressure. The relative effect of many of these
variables can be expected to exceed any reduction due to using reformulated gasoline45.
                                    Page 1 of 7

-------
                                INTRODUCTION

 Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) conducted this test program to obtain on-road fuel
 economy measurements  that compare summer-grade  Phase II  reformulated gasoline
 (Phase II RFG) with summer-grade  Phase I reformulated gasoline (Phase I RFG) at the
 request of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Phase II RFG properties are
 representative of the fuel that will be sold beginning in the year 2000. The Phase I RFG
 was a commercially available summer-grade gasoline obtained in the Houston area. Both
 fuels used MTBE as the oxygenate, and the oxygen levels were equivalent.
                                BACKGROUND

The  Fuels and Energy  Division (FED) within the Office of Mobile Sources (OMS) is
responsible  for  developing,  implementing,  and  assuring compliance  with national
programs that reduce air pollution from highway and nonroad sources through fuel and
fuel-related emission controls. FED develops regulations, policies, guidance, studies, and
reports to  Congress. FED provides fuel-related support to other divisions within OMS
and to other EPA offices, federal and state organizations, and external groups.  FED is
responsible for  identifying environmental benefits, costs, and other  effects  (e.g. U.S.
trade balance impacts, energy security impacts, fuel safety, vehicle compatibility, full life
cycle emissions) associated with fuels.  FED performs these assessments for petroleum-
based fuels as well as for alternative fuels.  FED reviews applications for fuel waiver
requests, collaborates with state and regional offices on oxygenated fuel responsibilities,
and oversees the registration program.  The coordination of energy policy for OMS  is
also a function of the division.

One  of the requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments that FED implements is
the reformulated gasoline (RFG)  program.   The  purpose of the RFG program is  to
improve air quality  by requiring that gasoline  sold in certain areas of the country be
reformulated to  reduce  emissions of toxics  and  tropospheric ozone-forming  volatile
organic compounds  (VOCs), as specified by section 211(k).  Section 211(k) mandates
that RFG must be sold in any ozone nonattainment area classified as severe, and in other
ozone nonattainment areas that choose to participate or "opt in" to the program.  The
RFG program was implemented in two phases.  Phase I RFG was required to be used in
the specified RFG areas beginning in January 1995. It will be replaced by Phase II RFG
in January 2000.  Phase II  RFG is  formulated to achieve  even greater  reductions in
VOCs, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and toxics than Phase I.
                                    Paae2of7

-------
                               TEST PROCEDURES

 The objective of the study was to provide on-road fuel economy measurements that
 compare summer-grade Phase II RFG with summer-grade Phase I RFG. The Society of
 Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard, Fuel Economy Measurement  Test Procedure -
 SAE J1082, is essentially designed to provide the type of measurements desired. That
 standard was  used as a guide for this study. Certain parameters, such as maximum
 ambient temperature and  test  repeatability limits,  various  vehicle  inspection  and
 operating ranges, were  not followed because of resource limitations  and because they
 were expected to have a minimal impact on the outcome of this study. The number of
 vehicles, tests, and variables in this study indicated that the focus of the analysis should
 be on comparing fleet fuel economies, determined from total fuel consumption of all  the
 vehicles, rather than  comparing the fuel  economies on individual vehicles. There is
 insufficient  information for robust  vehicle-by-vehicle  comparisons.  The  statistical
 treatment of the data has focused on detecting fleet effects.
A. Vehicle Selection

The test program was conducted on twelve (12)  in-use vehicles distributed, subject to
availability,  to cover the span of model years from 1989 through 1997.  Eight of the
vehicles were passenger cars,  both domestic  and imported,  compact to full-size, and
including four, six, and eight cylinder engines. The remaining four (4) vehicles  were
utility vehicles, three domestic and one imported model. They included a minivan, a sport
utility vehicle, and two light-duty trucks. The engines included  four, six, and  eight
cylinder models.  The range of fuel delivery systems, carburetted, throttle-body injected
(TBI),  and port-fuel injected (PFI) were  represented. There were two  throttle-body
injection, nine port-fuel injection, and one carburetted vehicle. A description of the test
vehicles is presented in Appendix A.

Prior to testing, each vehicle was inspected and repaired or adjusted to ensure that the
vehicle was in proper running order. The  inspections included items specified by the
vehicle preparation form in SAE Procedure J1082 "Fuel Economy Measurement  Road
Test Procedure". Vehicles that failed this  inspection were excluded from testing. The
maximum tread wear limitation and minimum engine oil age could not be verified in
most  cases  but  were  checked;  the  vehicle was excluded if  they were deemed
inappropriate. A copy of the vehicle inspection form is presented in Appendix B.

B. Vehicle Preparation

Upon successful completion of the inspection, the vehicle was equipped with auxiliary
fuel  supply  lines with quick-disconnects to allow for  installation  of a Max 710 Fuel
Measurement System just prior to testing. The Max 710 Fuel Measurement System uses a
positive displacement flow meter capable  of measuring fuel consumption with  0.5%
accuracy and 0.1% repeatability.
                                    Page 3 of 7

-------
    Bubble Tank
A bubble tank removed vapor bubbles to stabilize volumetric delivery to the flowmeter
that increased measurement accuracy. Since fuel volume increases slightly as temperature
rises, .   fuel   temperature   was
monitored just prior to measurement
by the flowmeter. Fuel  consumption
was later corrected for changes in
density  for the given temperatures.
A recovery tank collected the return
fuel  from  the   engine   so   the
flowmeter only measured make-up
fuel as it replaced the fuel consumed
by the engine.
                     Max710Ftowmeter
                          Recovery Tank
        Fig. 1 Max 710 Fuel Measunmtni System
The  vehicle fuel  tank  was flushed
and  filled with the  test fuel. The
vehicle was preconditioned to allow
those vehicles with  adaptive learn
capability to adjust to the test fuel.
The  preconditioning  procedure outlined in CRC Designation E-15-97  "Technique for
Determination of Octane Number Requirements of Light-Duty Vehicles" was performed
using a Clayton Chassis Dynamometer. The vehicle was driven over the first 505 seconds
of the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) emissions test cycle three times in order to achieve a
ten-mile warm-up. The preconditioning was initiated with the ignition key turned to the
off position  for five seconds and  returned to  the off position for  five seconds upon
completion of each 505-second cycle.  Each vehicle was preconditioned regardless of
technology to minimize test variability.

C. Fuel

The  test fuel used for this program was Phase II RFG/.(SwRI Code GA-3524). The test
fuel  was obtained from Phillips Chemical Company and was designated as Oxygenated
Test Fuel (MF 6500 Lot D-517). The test fuel was used  in EPA's RFG II  fleet test
program conducted in Boston, Chicago and Houston. The control fuel was Phase I  RFG
(SwRI Code GA-3520). The control fuel was obtained from  a retail outlet in the Houston
area. The fuels were dispensed from drums to the vehicles with a portable pump during
the test. Analyses of both fuel properties are presented in Table 2 of Appendix C.

 D.  Test Routes and Mileage Accumulation

 The fuel economy measurements were conducted over fixed road routes  that approximate
 urban and suburban driving patterns.  The urban driving  cycle is  50  miles of low to
 moderate speeds  with  frequent stops. The suburban driving cycle is 50 miles of mostly
 moderate speeds with infrequent  stops.  The  urban and suburban  driving cycles  were
 established using an instrumented vehicle with a calibrated speedometer.
Page 4 of 7

-------
      Fig. 2 Urban Driving Cycle Histogram
50.0%

40.0%
                    20     30
                    Speed (mph)
40
50
    Fig. 3 Suburban Driving Cycle Histogram
 Histograms of the urban and
 suburban   driving   cycle
 speeds   are   presented  in
 Figures  2 and  3.  Typical
 driving cycles are presented
 in Appendix D.

 Each vehicle  was operated
 for  15  miles just prior to
 testing to bring the vehicle to
 operating       temperature.
 Duplicate     urban     and
 suburban cycles were driven
 using  each   fuel.   Driver
 variability  was  kept  to a
 minimum by using the same
driver  for all  testing.  The
 vehicle  air conditioner was
operated at all times  during
testing since this is typical of
summer  driving.  The  air
conditioner was turned on in
the normakmode,  set to a
comfortable level, with low
fan. Before the start of each
driving   cycle,   the   fuel
volume  meter was reset to
zero    and    the     fuel
temperature recorded with  's
the engine  running.  Upon
 completion of each driving
cycle,   the   fuel  volume
(totalized) and temperature were recorded.

The vehicles  were driven over the 50-mile urban arjd the 50-mile  suburban road route
 once in the morning and again in the afternoon. Upon completion of each driving cycle,
 the fuel volume and temperature were recorded. To compensate for temperature effects,
 the fuel volume for each test was corrected to the standard reference conditions of 15.6
 C (60 F).
                     20     30
                    Speed (mph)
40
50
 Pa2e5of7

-------
                                    RESULTS

 The  individual  vehicle  fuel  economy and  consumption data,  corrected  for fuel
 temperature, are given in Appendix E. Duplicate tests, two  urban cycles  and two
 suburban cycles were run using Phase I RFG, the control fuel; the sequence was repeated
 using Phase II RFG, the test fuel. The  fuel consumed by each individual vehicle was
 added, within fuel types, to provide  overall fuel economy numbers for the entire fleet.
 The fleet-wide fuel consumption data over both urban and suburban test cycles is shown
 in Appendix F.

 Eleven of the twelve vehicles in the test  program completed the test schedule,  four tests
on  each of the two  fuels.  The twelfth vehicle,  vehicle  L, experienced mechanical
problems (clutch failure) during testing and did  not complete the eight tests.  Five tests
for vehicle L are shown in the individual vehicle fuel economy and consumption data
tables in Appendix E. The fleet-wide fuel consumption was computed using the values
from the first run of the urban and suburban driving cycles. The second run of the urban
and suburban driving cycle for vehicle L was not  included in the fleet average.
Table 6. Fleet Fuel Economy Results

Total Fuel Consumed (Liters)
Total Distance Driven (km)
Fleet Fuel Economy (km/L)
Fleet Fuel Economy (mpg)
Difference (RFG II - RFG I) (km/L)
Difference (RFG II - RFG I) (mpg)
RFG I
401.02
3700.70
9.23
21.71
RFG II
407.46
3700.70
9.08
21.36
-0.146
-0.343
The difference in fleet fuel economies is the experimental result. In order to determine
how closely it represents the true difference in fuel economies, a nonparametric statistical
test6 was used to determine whether the difference is likely to be real or the result of
measurement variability.

To test the  assumption  of no difference  in  fleet  fuel economies,  the  difference in
individual fuel consumption rates (liters per kilometer) were compared in Appendix G,
thereby  weighting the  individual  differences  in  proportion  to  their overall  fuel
consumption. These consumption rates were then tested against the null hypothesis of no
difference  in fleet fuel economies. The  hypothesis  was not  rejected therefore no
difference in fleet fuel economy between Phase I RFG and Phase II RFG is indicated.
                                     Page 6 of 7

-------
                                  CONCLUSION

The results of this study show no  significant change in fleet fuel economy  when
switching from Phase I  RFC to Phase II RFG. The small difference in the fleet fuel
economy cannot be attributed to the change in fuel.  It may be due to variability that is
inherent in  the test method. Sources of such test-to-test variability that could not be
entirely controlled in this experiment include differences in driver inputs, traffic patterns,
and weather effects.

The experimental  results produced a very small,  statistically insignificant, difference
between the fleet fuel economies. The statistical test used to determine significance also
indicated that the difference between the fleet fuel economies would have to be almost
twice as large to be significant.

The finding that there was no difference in fuel  economy  was not  unexpected. Fuel
economy correlates with the fuel property of heat of combustion1. As indicated on Table
2, the heat of combustion for the test and control fuels  were essentially identical.
                                     Page 7 of 7

-------
Table 1 . Vehicle Descriptions
Year
1997
1996
1995
1994
1994
1993
1993
1992
1991
1990
1990
1989
Type
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
SUV
Truck
Sedan
Van
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Sedan
Truck
Make
Plymouth
Chevrolet
Mazda
Ford
Chevrolet
Ford
Plymouth
Audi
Chevrolet
Ford
Toyota
Vfazda
Model
Neon
Lumina
626
Explorer
Silverado
Taurus
Voyager
100s
Caprice
Probe
Corolla
B2200
Engine
4 cyl, 2.0 L
6cyl, 3.1 L
4 cyl, 2.0 L
6 cyl, 4.0 L
8 cyl, 5.7 L
6 cyl, 3.0 L
6 cyl, 3.0 L
6 cyl, 2.8 L
8 cyl, 5.0 L
4 cyl, 2.2 L
4 cyl, 1.6L
4 cyl, 2.2 L
Fuel
System
PFI
PFI
PFI
PFI
TBI
PFI
PFI
PFI
TBI
PFI
PFI
carb
Mileage
28,903
115,566
85,940
46,978
87,232
59,738
91,265
65,081
113,413
87,571
140,838
166,993
4 I  nf I

-------
 Year:
EPA FUEL ECONOMY VEHICLE INSPECTION

               Make/Model:	
 VIN :
 Mileage :
 Optional Power Consuming Equip :

 Tire Make/ Size :
               Transmission :
               Engine/Disp/Fuel:
                         Tires have over 100 miles ? YES / NO
 Front Brakes ? DISK / DRUM
 Rear Brakes? DISK/DRUM
               Brake drag not excessive ? YES / NO
               Brake drag not excessive ? YES / NO
                                      CHECK LIST

                    Engine Oil Level OK
                   "Coolant Level OK
                    Transmission Fluid Level OK
                   " Fuel System OK
                   "Belts and Hoses TIGHT
                   "Throttle Operation FUNCTIONAL
                    Engine Operation OK
                    Transmission Operation OK
                   "Tire Wear EVEN
                   "Air Cleaner CLEAN
                   ' Fan Clutch FUNCTIONAL
                   ' Air Conditioning FUNCTIONAL
                                  Leaks ? YES / NO
                                  Leaks ? YES / NO
                                  Leaks ? YES / NO
                                  Leaks ? YES / NO
Diagnostic Codes :
Note Scratches/Dents/Hubcaps.
Comments :
Name :
                                  Date
                                       Bl of!

-------
 APPENDIX C




FUEL ANALYSIS

-------
Table 2. Fuel Analysis Summary
Test
ASTM D86 - Distillation Temperature (F)




ASTMD4052 - Density @ 15.5 C (60 F)

ASTMD519T- RVP by Grabner
ASTMD323 - Reid Vapor Pressure
ASTMD2622 -Sulfur by X-Ray Florescence
ASTM Dl 3 19 - Hydrocarbon Composition


" 'A
ASTM D2699 - Research Octane Number ,
ASTM D2 700 - Motor Octane Number
7
/
ASTMD48I5 - Oxygenates
>
ASTM D240 - Heat of Combustion
(
IBP
5%
10%
15%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
95%
EP/FBP
Recovery (vol%)
Residue (vol%)
Loss (vol%)
E-200 (vol%)
E-300 (vol%)
API
Specific Gravity
(psi)
(psi)
(wt%)
Aromatics (vol%)
Olefms (vol%)
Saturates (vol%)
Benzene (vol%)
Research
Motor
(R+M)/2
Sensitivity (R-M)
MTBE (vol%)
Oxygen (wt%)
Gross (Btu/lb)
Net (Btu/lb)
Phase I RFC
(GA-3520)***
103.0
124.0
135.0
142.0
149.0
165.0
185.0
213.0
245.0
271.0
296.0
328.0
353.0
393.0
97.5
0.5
2.0
45.7
81.5
57.0
0.7505
6.89

0.032
31.5
13.0
55.5
1.22
92.9
- 83.1
88.0
9.8
10.76
2.00
19,417.2
18,199.3
Phase II RFC
(GA-3524)*
105.0
129.2
139.7

154.6
169.4
186.1
205.7
228.7
252.1
279.5
312.5
343.2
388.7

0.9
1.4


59.4
0.7414

6.8
0.016
24.5
12.0

1.0
96.2
85.7
91.0
10.5
11.2
2.04**
19473.4***
18236.3***
  * Phillips analysis - Lot D517
**02wt% = (0.112x0.l82)xlOO
 *** Southwest Research analysis
           Cl of 1

-------
         APPENDIX D




URBAN AND SUBURBAN TEST ROUTES

-------
              Figure 4 Typical Urban Driving Cycle
1001
               2001
3001
   Time (sec)
                                              4001
5001
6001

-------
                                   Figure 5 Typical Suburban Driving Cycle
o^
ro
                                1001
2001
Time (sec)
3001
4001

-------
            APPENDIX E




INDIVIDUAL VEHICLE FUEL ECONOMY DATA

-------
Table 3. Fuel Economy Results for the Urban Driving Cycle
Vehicle
A
B
r



F

p





1
J
K
L*
Fuel
RFC I
RFGII
RFGI
RFC IF
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGI
Date
08-Jun-98
09-Jun-98
IO-Jun-98
ll-Jun-98
1 2-Jun-98

1 3-Jun-98

1 5-Jun-98

!6-Jun-98

1 7- Jun-98

l8-Jun-98

1 9-Jun-98

20- Jun-98

22-Jun-98

91. Inn OR

JA hin QR

->< Inn OS

*)f. !,,_ QO

27-Jun-98
29-Jun-98
30-Jun-98
02-Jul-98
03-Jul-98
08-Jul-98
09-Jul-98
Time
8:00
12:00
8:00
12:00
8:00
12:00
11:00
16:00
8:00
12:00
8:00
12:00
12:00
16:00
8:00
12:00
9:00
13:00
10:00
14:00
8:00
12:00
8:00
12:00
9:00
13:00
8:00
12:00
11:00
15:00
8:00
12:00
8:00
12:00
8:00
12:00
9:00
13:00
8:00
12:00
10:00
14:00
8:00
12:00
11:00
#N/A
8:00
12:0
Fuel
Consumed
cm3
14,074
13,597
13,491
13,473
11,197
11,023
10,928
11,119
7,058
6,845
7,443
7,513
10,000
10,397
10,601
11,340
10,941
11,293
12,055
11,812
9,080
9,491
8,842
9,345
10,839
10,808
10,571
10,826
8,026
7,994
7,936
8,162
8,636
8,726
8,731
9,598
8,965
9,065
8,529
8,263
11,539
11,745
11,957
11,946
8,823
#N/A
9,10
9,25
Observed
Fuel
Economy
km/L
5.72
5.92
5.96
5.97
7.18
7.30
7.36
7.24
11.40
11.75
10.81
10.71
8.05
7.74
7.59
7.09
7.35
7.12
6.67
6.81
8.86
8.48
9.10
8.61
7.42
7.44
7.61
7.43
10.02
10.06
10.14
9.86
9.32
9.22
9.21
8.38 c
8.97
8.87
9.43
9.74
6.97
$85
'6.73
6.73
9.12
#N/A
8.83
8.69
Average
Fuel Temp.
C
28.3
38.6
29.4
36.9
32.8
40.6
31.4
42.2
33.3
42.5
33.1
44.2
39.2
51.1
30.8
43.1
29.7
40.3
34.2
43.6
33.9
45.8
33.3
46.9
34.2
45.3
30.8
42.5
41.1
47.8
31.7
44.4
35.8
53.3
35.3
53.9
34.2
45.8
34.2
47.2
35.8
45.0
31.4
39.7
33.9
#N/A
28.1
40.3
Corrected
Fuel
Economy
km/L
5.80
6.07
6.06
6.11
7.32
7.50
7.49
7.45
11.62
12.11
11.02
11.06
8.26
8.05
7.72
7.31
7.47
7.32
6.81
7.03
9.04
8.77
9.28
8.92
7.58
7.69 r
7.74
7.66
10.31
10.43
10.32
10.18
9.53
9.62
9.42
8.75
9.16
9.18
9.63
10.09
7.13
7.08
6.85
6.92
9.31
#N/A
8.96
8.93
Corrected Fuel
Consumed
Liters
13.88
13.25
13.29
13.16
10.99
10.72
10.74
10.79
6.92
6.64
7.30
7.28
9.74
9.99
10.42
11.00
10.77
10.99
11.81
11.45
8.90
9.18
8.67
9.02 ^
10.62
10.46
10.39
10.51
7.80
7.71
7.80
7.90
8.44
8.36
8.54
9.19
8.78
8.76
8.36
7.98
11.28
11.37
11.75
11.63
8.65
#N/A
8.98
9.01
(gallons)
(3.67)
(3.50)
(3.51)
(3.48)
(2.90)
(2.83)
(2.84)
(2.85)
(1.83)
(1.76)
(1.93)
(1.92)
(2.57)
(2.64)
(2.75)
(2.91)
(2.85)
(2.90)
(3-12)
(3.03)
(2.35)
(2.42)
(2-29)
(2.38) >
(2.81)
(2.76)
(2.75)
(2.78)
(2.06)
(2.04)
(2.06)
(2.09)
(2.23)
(2.21)
(2.26)
(2.43)
(2.32)~
(2.32)
(2.21)
(2.11)
(2.98)
(3.00)
(3.10)
(3.07)
(2.28)
#N/A
(2.37)
(2.38)
* Vehicle L experienced mechanical problems on the last suburban driving cycle using Phase II RFG. In addition,
there was only enough Phase I RFG to perform one urban and one suburban driving cycle.
                                                  El of2

-------
Table 4. Fuel Economy Results for the Suburban Driving Cycle
Vehicle
A
B
C










i

J
K
L*
Fuel
RFC I
RFC II
RFGI
RFC II
RFGI
RFC II
RFGI
RFGH
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
^FGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
Date
08-Jun-98
09-Jun-98
10-Jun-98
ll-Jun-98
!2-Jun-98
!3-Jun-98
l5-Jun-98
1A Inn Oft

n. hin. 08

1ft Inn. OS

19-Jun-98

">ft Inn Oft

?"> Inn Oft

T-) [lin QQ

24-Jun-98

IS-Ilin-QR

?6-Jnn-98

97-Jun-98

29-Jun-98

TO- Inn Oft

02-Jul-98
03-Jul-98
08-Jul-98
09-Jul-98
Time
10:00
14:00
10:00
14:00
10:00
14:00
13:00
18:00
10:00
14:00
10:00
14:00
14:00
18:00
10:00
14:00
11:00
15:00
12:00
16:00
10:00
14:00
10:00
14:00
11:00
15:00
10:00
, 14:00
13:00
17.00
10:00
14.00
10:00
16:00
10:00
14:00
11:00
17:00
10:00
14:00
13:00
17:00
10:00
14:00
13:00
#N/A
10:00
#N/A
Fuel
Consumed
cm5
11,108
11,578
10,702
11,069
8,159
8,414
8,234
8,018
5,807
5,660
6,393
6,360
8,717
9,068
8,992
8,930
9,725
10,133
10,023
10,207
6,656
7,032
6,574
7,084
6,783
7,632
7,581
7,670
6,409
6,565
6,337
, 6,640
6,653
6,832
' 6,667
7,082
,786
6,132
6,547
6,558
9,542
9,525
9,709
9,826
7,499
#N/A
7,771
#N/A
Observed
Fuel
Economy
km/L
7.24
6.95
7.52
7.27
9.86
9.56
9.77
10.03
13.85
14.21
12.58
12.65
9.23
8.87
8.95
9.01
8.27
7.94
8.03
7.88
12.09
11.44
12.24
11.36
11.86
10.54
10.61
10.49
12.55
12.25
12.70
12.12
12.09
11.78
12.07
11.36
11.86
13.12
12.29
12.27
8.43
8.45
8.29
8.19
10.73
#N/A
10.35
#N/A
Average
Fuel Temp
C
32.8
43.1
32.8
41.4
36.9
44.7
37.5
42.2
38.9
422
39.7
47.5
46.7
50.0
37.2
46.7
35.6
43.6
41.9
46.4
40.0
50.6
40.8
51.7
40.3
47.8
37.2
45.8
45.6
48.9
39.4
48.6
47.2
57.5
46.4
5,9.4
42.2
38.9
41.7
52.2
42.5
46.4
36.9
40.3
43.9
#N/A
34.4
#N/A
Corrected
Fuel
Economy
km/L
7.38
7.16
7.66
7.48
10.10
9.88
10.01
10.34
14.22
14.64
12.93
13.11
9.56
9.22
9.16
9.33
8.46
8.19
8.27
8.16
12.42
11.90
12.59
11.83
12.19
10.93
10.87
10.85
12.98
12.72
13.04
12.57
12.53
12.34
12.49
11.94
12.21
13.46
12.65
12.78
8.69
8.74
8.48
8.42
11.07
#N/A
10.57
#N/A
Corrected Fuel
Consumed
Liters
10.90
11.23
10.50
10.76
7.97
8.14
8.04
7.78
5.66
5.49
6.22
6.14
8.42
8.73
8.78
8.63
9.51
9.82
9.73
9.86
6.48
6.76
6.39
6.80
6.60
7.36
7.40
7.42
6.20
6.32
6.17
6.40
6.42
6.52
6.44
6.74
6.59
5.98
6.36
6.29
9.26
9.20
9.48
9.56
7.27
#N/A
7.61
#N/A
(gallons)
(2.88)
(2.97)
(2.77)
(2.84)
(2.11)
(2.15)
(2.12)
(2.06)
(1.50)
(1.45)
(1.64)
(1.62)
(2.22)
(2.31)
(2.32)
(2.28)
(2.51)
(2.60)
(2.57)
(2.61)
(1.71)
(1.79)
(1.69)
(1.80)
(1.74)
(1.95)
(1-96)
(1.96)
(1.64)
(1.67)
(1.63)
(1.69)
(1.70)
(1.72)
(1.70)
(1.78)
(1.74)
(1.58)
(1.68)
(1.66)
(2.45)
(2.43)
(2.51)
(2.53)
(1.92)
#N/A
(2.01)
#N/A'
* Vehicle L experienced mechanical problems on the last suburban driving cycle using Phase IF .RFC. In addition,
there was only enough Phase I RFG to perform one urban and one suburban driving cycle.                      !
                                                 E2of2

-------
        APPENDIX F




FLEET FUEL CONSUMPTION DATA

-------
Table 5. Corrected Fuel Consumed (Liters)
Vehicle
A
B
C
D
E
F
c.

u

i

i



i *

Fuel
RFC I
RFC II
RFGI
RFC II
RFGI
RFGU
RFGI
RFC II
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGU
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
Urban
Run 1
13.88
13.29
10.99
10.74
6.92
7.30
9.74
10.42
10.77
11.81
8.90
8.67
10.62
10.39
7.80
7.80
8.44
8.54
8.78
8.36
11.28
11.75
8.65
8.98
Urban
Run 2
13.25
13.16
10.72
10.79
6.64
7.28
9.99
11.00
10.99
11.45
9.18
9.02
10.46
10.51
7.71
7.90
8.36
9.19
8.76
7.98
11.37
11.63
#N/A
#N/A
Suburban
Run 1
10.90
10.50
7.97
8.04
5.66
6.22
8.42
8.78
9.51
9.73
6.48
6.39
6.60
7.40
6.20
6.17
6.42
6.44
6.59
6.36
9.26
9.48
7.27
7.61
Suburban
Run 2
11.23
10.76
8.14
7.78
5.49
6.14
8.73
8.63
9.82
9.86
6.76
6.80
7.36
7.42
6.32
6.40
6.52
6.74
5.98
6.29
9.20
9.56
#N/A
#N/A

Total
RFGI
49.26

37.82

24.72

36.88

41.09

31.31

35.03

28.04

29.75

30.11

41.11

15.91

401.02
RFGII

47.70

37.35

26.94

38.83

42.85

30.89

35.72

28.27

30.92

28.98

42.42

16.59
407.46
* The fleet-wide fuel consumption  was computed using the values from the first run of the urban and
suburban driving cycles. The second run of the urban and suburban driving cycle was not included in the
fleet average
                                             Fl of 1

-------
     APPENDIX G




STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

-------
Table 7. Corrected Fuel Economies (L/km)
Vehicle
A
B
C
D
E
F
c,



1

1

K'

1 *

Fuel
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFGII
RFGI
RFG II
Urban
Run 1
0.17
0.16
0.137
0.133
0.086
0.09
0.12
0.130
0.134
0.147
0.111
0.108
0.132
0.129
0.097
0.097
0.105
0.106
0.109
0.104
0.140
0.146
0.107
0.112
Urban
Run 2
0.16
0.16
0.13
0.134
0.083
0.090
0.124
0.137
0.137
0.142
0.114
0.112
0.130
0.131
0.096
0.098
0.104
0.114
0.109
0.099
0.141
0.145
#N/A
#N/A
Suburban
Run 1
0.13
0.13
0.099
0.100
0.070
0.077
0.105
0.109
0.118
0.121
0.081
0.079
0.082
0.092
0.077
0.077
0.080
0.080
0.082
0.079
0.115
0.118
0.090
0.095
I Suburban
Run 2
0.14
0.134
0.10
0.097
0.068
0.076
0.108
0.107
0.122
0.123
0.084
0.085
0.092
0.092
0.079
0.080
0.081
0.084
0.074
0.078
0.114
0.119
#N/A
#N/A
Average
0.153
0.1482
0.1175
0.116
0.0768
0.0837
0.1146
0.1207
0.1277
0.1332
0.0973
0.0960
0.1089
0.1 110
0.0871
0.0878
0.0924
0.0961
0.0936
0.0901
0.1278
0.1318
0.0989
0.1031
Difference
-0 0048

-0.00145
0.00690
0.00605
0.00547
-0.00132
0.00212
0.00073
0.00364
-0.00349
0.00407
0.00423
Rank
7
3
10
9
8
5
2
1
4
11
6
#N/A
Vehicle L was excluded from the statistical analysis.
                    Gl  of I

-------
REFERENCES

-------
 1.  A. M. Hoochhauser, J. D. Benson, V. R. Bums,  R. A Gorse, Jr., W.J. Koehl, L. J.
    Painter,  R. M.  Reuter,  and J.  A.  Rutherford, "Fuel Composition  Effects on
    Automotive Fuel Economy - Auto/Oil Air Quality Improvement Research Program",
    SAE Paper No. 930138(1993).

2.  S.  Aceves, R. Glaser, and J. Richardson, "Assessment of California Reformulated
    Gasoline  Impact  on   Vehicle Fuel  Economy", Lawrence  Livermore  National
    Laboratory (January 1997).

3.  "California Reformulated Gasoline: Performance and  Compatibility  Test Program:
    Report of the  Performance Subcommittee of the California Reformulated Gasoline
    Advisory Committee", California  Environmental Protection Agency,  Air  Resources
    Board (March  1996).

4.  M.W. Thomson, A. R.  Frelund, M. Pallas, and K. D. Miller,  1987, "General Motors
    2.3L Quad 4 Engine", SAE Paper 870353

5.  Environmental Protection Agency, 1995,  "Fuel Economy Impact Analysis of RFG",
   Report EPA 420-F-95-003, EPA Office of Mobile Sources

6. Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

-------
Appendix N

-------
     Temperatures at Milwaukee Mitchell airport: October - December 1998
  Date

October
   1
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
   8
   9
   10
   11
   12
   13
   14
   15
   16
   17
   18
   19
   20
   21
   22
   23
   24
   25
   26
   27
   28
   29
   30
   31
          Min      Max
                                  Date
                                           Min
                                                   Max
                                                                    Date
                                                                              Min
                                                                                      Max
44
39
50
54
57
55
48
48
43
43
43
51
41
39
45
57
64
46
41
41
45
34
43
43
48
 53
 57
 54
 48
 54
 52
60
56
55
61
63
70
58
57
62
64
64
64
58
52
59
70
72
66
61
55
52
54
64
64
66
72
65
 63
 55
 57
 55
November
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

50
*5
37
32
28
28
28
33
36
41
36
34
25
39
36
37
34
34
36
30
27
36
46
37
43
41
28
45
55
45

54
52
45
43
41
43
45
39
45
61
45
43
50
55
50
52
45
49
54
35
39
55
57
51
54
59
64
64
64
66
December
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

36
46
53
46
45
34
34
27
28
32
30
30
27
21
39
33
26
25
27
28
12
1
7
-
-
18
19
16
23
-
-

57
61
64
59
61
55
39
43
46
39
46
46
44
46
48
44
35
48
47
34
32
13
23
-
-
30
39
39
36
-
-
(Note: All temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit)

-------